CORNELL
UNIVERSITY’
LIBRARY
cornell University Libra

BX 8241.R31
History of the organization of the Metho
HISTORY

OF THE

ORGANIZATION

OF THE

Methodist Cpacomal Chueh,

SOUTH.

BY A. H. REDFORD, D.D.

Nashville, Tenn:

PUBLISHED BY A. H. REDFORD, AGENT, ..
FOR THE M. E. CHURCH, SOUTH.
1871.
 

* Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1871, by
A. H. REDFORD, Acenr,
in the office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington.

 

 

STEREOTYPED AND PRINTED AT THE SOUTIIERN METHODIST PUBLISHING HOUSE,
. NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE.

 
TO THE MEMORY
or THE
Decersedl Hishops of the Alethodist Episcopal
Church, South,
THE LATE VENERABLE

JOSHUA SOULE, D.D.; JAMES OSGOOD ANDREW,
D.D.; WILLIAM CAPERS, D.D.; AND HENRY
BIDLEMAN BASCOM, D.D.;

THIS VOLUME IS RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED, BY

The Author.
PREFACE,

More than a quarter of a century has elapsed since the
organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South.
The men who were prominent in the General Conference of
1844, the extrajudicial legislation of which body resulted
in the division of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the
United States into two separate and distinct ecclesiastical
organizations, with but few exceptions, have passed away.
The names of Olin, Bangs, Finley, Elliott, Collins, Hami-
line, and of Bascom, Winans, Longstreet, Capers, Smith,
and Fowler, no longer appear on the roll of the Conferences
where, for so many years, they were the bulwarks of the
Church. Bishop Morris, the senior Bishop of the Method-
ist Episcopal Church, (North,) alone remains of the men
who composed the College of Bishops at that period. No
longer able to go in and out before his brethren, he enjoys
a serene old age, and is joyful in contemplation of the heay-
enly inheritance. His colleagues have passed over the
river, and entered upon “the rest that remaineth to the peo-
ple of God.” The names of Hedding and Waugh will ever
be dear to the memory of Methodism in the North; while
those of Soule and Andrew, whose graves are yet damp

(5)
vi PREFACE.

with the tears of: the Church, will always be cherished with
a sacred fondness by the Methodist Episcopal Church,
South.

Since the division of the Methodist Episcopal Church in
the United States, a new generation has come upon the
scene, who are not familiar with the circumstances that led
to the separation. The object of this work is to place in a
permanent and enduring form the proceedings of the Gen-
eral Conference of 1844, so far as they bear upon this ques-
tion, together with all the official documents and papers
necessary to a full understanding of the reasons by which
the Southern Delegates in that body were governed in the
declaration they made that “a continuance of the jurisdic-
tion of that General Conference over the Conferences they
represented, was inconsistent with the success of the minis-
try in the slaveholding States.”

The success that has attended the Methodist Episcopal
Church, South, since it became an independent organization,
is cause of thanksgiving to Almighty God. The approving
smiles of Heaven have rested upon it, indicating not only
the propriety but the necessity of the separation.

A. H. REDFORD.
Nasuyitzez, Trenn., April 4, 1871.
CONTENTS.

CHAPTER I.

The General Conference of 1844—The Compromise-law of 1816—The peace-
ful relations under this law between the Northern and Southern portions
of the Chureh—The prosperity of the Church—Occasional agitations on
the subject of Slavery—Petitions to the General Conference of 1844—Com-
mittee on Slavery—The Appeal of Francis A. Harding—Speech of Dr.
Wm. A. Smith—Speech of John A. Collins—State of feeling in the South
—The decision of the Baltimore Conference in the case of Harding af-
firmed—Sketch of William A. Smith 9

CHAPTER II.

The influence of the action of the General Conference in the case of Fran-
cis A. Harding—Resolution of Drs. Capers and Olin—Speeches of Drs.
Olin and Durbin—Committee of Pacification appointed —Dr. Durbin’s
resolution, proposing a day of fasting, humiliation, and prayer—The
committee fail to agree on any plan of compromise—Resolution of Mr.
Collins in reference to Bishop Andrew—Report of the Committee on
Episcopacy—Bishop Andrew’s statement—The report of the committeo
made the special order of the day for the 22d of May—Great interest
felt—Alfred Griffith’s speech—Benjamin M. Drake’s motion to amend the
preamble—Bishop Soule addresses the Conference—Speeches of Peter
P. Sandford and Dr. William Winans—Speeches of Elias Bowen and Dr.
Lovick Pierce—Speeches of Jerome C. Berryman, Seymour Coleman,
Dr. Smith, and Thomas Stringfield—Sketch of Thomas Stringfield—
Speech of Thomas Crowder—Sketch of Thomas Crowder—Speech of Dr.
Nathan Bangs......... secs sscsssesesersssessssearcnsasernrees reg aetae sae dis iaabucvadebestseessceabese 148

CHAPTER III. ;

Resolution of James B. Finley—Speech of Dr. Olin—Speech of Benjamin
M. Drake—Speech of George F. Piercee—Speech of Jesse T. Peck—
Speech of Bishop Andrew—Bishop Soule addresses the Conference—
Speech of Dr. Capers—Address from the Bishops—The adoption of Mr.
Finley’s Resolution 205

CHAPTER IV.

The effect of the action of the General Conference on the Church in the
South—Notice given by Dr. Pierce that the Southern Delegates would
enter their Protest—Resolutions offered by Henry Slicer—Resolutions
offered by Dr. Capers—Referred to a Committee—Declaration of the
Southern Members—Dr. Elliott proposes its reference—Speech of Peter,
P. Sandford—Reply of Dr. Longstreet—Dr. Olin’s Remarks—Declaration
referred—Resolution of Instruction to the Committee—Protest of the

7)
 

vill CONTENTS.

Minority—Communiecation from Bishops Soule, Hedding, Waugh, and
Morris—Reply of the Conference—Report of the Committee of Nine—
The Report discussed—Its adoption—The Adjournment of the General
Conference. ww 816

 

CHAPTER V.

The Meeting of the Southern Delegates in New York—Plan of action rec-
ommended to the Annual Conferences—Their Address to the members
of the Church in the Slaveholding States and Territories—Excitement
throughout the Church—Resolutions adopted in Virginia, in Alabama, in
North Carolina, in South Carolina, in Georgia, in Louisiana, in Tennes-
see, in Kentueky—Dr. Elliott advocates Division—The action of the sev-
eral Annual Conferences—Bishop Andrew’s position—Letter from Bishop
Soule to Bishop Andrew—Letter from Bishop Soule in reply to Dr. Bond
—Communication from the College of Bishops......... seveneaeeeseeneees teeter enone 375

CHAPTER VI.

Excitement along the Border—Reyv. Joseph S. Tomlinson, D.D.—The Mi-
nerva Circuit, Kentucky Conference—Convention meets in Louisville,
Kentucky, on the first day of May, 1845—Of whom composed—Bishops
Soule, Andrew, and Morris present—Bishop Soule’s address to the Con-
vention—Committee appointed to consider the necessity of a Southern
Organization—Resolutions offered by Dr. Winans—B. M. Drake’s Reso-
lution—Resolution offered by Drs. Smith and Pierce—Resolution offered
by James E. Evans—Withdrawn—Dr. Smith’s Resolution adopted—Re-
port of the Committee on Organization—Its adoption—Resolutions re-
questing Bishops Soule and Andrew to unite with the Methodist Episco-
pal Church, South—Reply of Bishops Soule and Andrew—Pastoral Ad-
dress—Adjournment of the Convention—Border Conferences.......eeeees 413

CHAPTER VII.
The first General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South—
Bishops Soule and Andrew present—Bishop Soule’s Communication—Re-
ferred toa Committee—Report of Committee—Dr. Pierce appointed Fra-
ternal Messenger to the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal
Chureh—Dr. Dixon from the British Conference, Dr. Richey, and Revs.
J. Ryerson and A. Green from the Canada Conference—Fraternal inter-
course with the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, declined —Dr.
Pierce’s popularity in Pittsburgh—His Report to the General Confer-
ence of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, in 1850—The Property
Question—The Lawsuits—Decisions in favor of the Methodist Episcopal
Church, South—Position, duty, and prospects of the Methodist Episco-
pal Church, South..

 

APPENDIX.

(A) List of Delegates of the General Conference Of 1844.0... cence eseeee 591
(B) Action of the Southern Conferences in regard to the Division of the
Church B94
(C) Correspondence Concerning Union. 629
(D) Decision of the Supreme Court of the United States....... . 644

 

 
 
HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZATION

OF THE

M. E. CHURCH, SOUTH.

 

CHAPTER I.

The General Conference of 1844—The Compromise-law of
1816—The peaceful relations under this law between the
Northern and Southern portions of the Church—The
prosperity of the Church—Occasional agitations on the
subject of Slavery—Petitions to the General Conference
of 1844—Committee on Slavery—The Appeal of Francis
A. Harding—Speech of Dr. Wm. A. Smith—Speech of
Johy-A. Collins—State of feeling in the South—The
decision of the Baltimore Conference in the case of Hard-
ing affirmed—Sketch of William A. Smith.

Tue General Conference which assembled in the
city of New York in 1844, on the first day of
May, will be ever memorable in the annals of
American Methodism. The strength and influ-

ence of the Church represented by that body—its
1* (9)
10 Organization of the

territorial extent spreading over a country reach-
ing from British America on the North to the Gulf
of Mexico on the South, and from the Atlantic
Ocean on the East to the very verge of civilization
on the Western frontier; the importance of the
questions which occupied the attention of the
Conference, together with the extrajudicial legis-
lation in the cases of Francis A. Harding, an appel-
lant from the Baltimore Conference, and Bishop
James O. Andrew, of the State of Georgia, which
resulted in the division of the “ Methodist Epis-
copal Church in the United States” into two sepa-
rate and distinct organizations, invested this Gen-
eral Conference with an interest and importance
that cannot be claimed for any session that pre-
ceded it.

From the time of the organization of the Meth-
odist Episcopal Church in America, the question
of slavery had occupied the attention of both
Annual and General Conferences. In 1816, a
law was enacted, known as the Compromise-law
of the Church, on this subject, which dtelared
slaveholders ineligible to any official station in the
Church, where “the laws of the State in which
they live will admit of emancipation, and permit
the liberated slave to enjoy freedom.”

From 1816 to 1844, this compromise-law was
recognized by the Church, and, with the exception
of a few restless persons who occasionally appeared
M. E. Church, South. if

on the tapis, no dissatisfaction was expressed either
North or South. While, without this spirit of
accommodation, it would have been impossible for
Methodism to obtain a foothold in the South, yet,
under it, the Church had grown and prospered.
Between the two sections the greatest harmony
prevailed, each rejoicing in the prosperity of the
other. The ecclesiastical history of the North and
South was one history, and the achievements of
the Church were the common property of the en-
tire Connection.

Under this compromise-law the General Con-
ference had met quadrennially for twenty-eight
years, enjoying peace, fraternal confidence, and
Christian love: under it, the Church, North and
South, East and West, enjoyed a prosperity and
power for the accomplishment of good, and attained
to a position occupied by no other body of Chris-
tians on this continent. The light of her counte-
nance and the brightness of her smiles were felt
alike in homes of opulence and in the cottages of
the poor, and from hearts gladdened by its bless-
ings, from cabin and from palace, praises were con-
tinually ascending to Heaven. .

The General Conference of 1844 was looked to
by the Church with feelings of uncommon interest.
During the quadrennial term that preceded it, the
increase in the membership had been greater than
during any four years previous, and the impres-
12 Organization of the

sion was general, if not universal, that the session
would be unusually harmonious. The Southern
portion of the Church was willing to submit to the
law as it existed and had been executed, and it
was not believed that the North desired to intro-
duce any new terms of membership.

At no period since the introduction of Method-
ism into this country, had so great a calm been
enjoyed. Scarcely an adverse breeze was stir-
ring. Christian confidence and fraternal intercourse
pervaded the whole Church. It was the calm,
however, that precedes the tempest.

The question of slavery and abolition had been
discussed in the councils of the nation, and politi-
cal demagogues were courting political preferment,
by appealing to the prejudices and inflaming the pas-
sions of the people on this subject; and these dis-
cussions occasionally disturbed the tranquillity of
the Church. It was not, however, believed in the
South that there would be any serious agitation
in the General Conference of this or kindred ques-
tions.

Just previous to the convening of the General
Conference, however, petitions on the subject of
slavery were gotten up in several of the Northern
Conferences. On the third day of the session, a
petition from the Providence Conference was pre-
sented, which called at once to the floor several
members of the body. It was moved by Mr.
M. E. Church, South. 13

Slicer, of the Baltimore Conference, “that it lie on
the table until a committee should be appointed to
whom to refer it.” To this Mr. Crowder, of Vir-
ginia, objected, and called for its reading. In this
opinion Mr. Drake, of Mississippi, concurred, and
the motion was withdrawn, and the memorial was
read.

Mr. Collins, of Baltimore, then moved “ that
the memorial be referred to a committee of one
from each Annual Conference, to be called a Com-
mittee on Slavery.” Dr. Capers, of South Caro-
lina, objected to raising any such committee, as well
as to the reference of the memorial, and “moved
that the motion to refer lie on the table.” This,
however, was lost. On the motion to raise the
committee, a spirited debate was elicited, in which
Mr. Collins, of Baltimore, Dr. Capers, of South
Carolina, Mr. Dow, of New Hampshire, and Mr.
Early, of Virginia, took a part. The motion to
lay on the table was lost, and the memorial was
referred to a committee to be composed of one from
each Annual Conference.

The petition from the Providence Conference
was not the only one that was presented and re-
ferred. New England, Maine, New Hampshire,
Black River, Pittsburgh, Rock River, Ohio, and
other Conferences, also presented petitions on the
same subject, which were referred to the Com-
mittee on Slavery.
14, Organization of the

On the 6th of May, Dr. W. A. Smith, of Vir-
ginia, offered the following resolution:

“Resolved, That the committee to whom the
memorials on slavery are referred, be, and hereby
are, requested to report directly on the points, the
alleged facts and arguments, submitted by the
memorialists, and present their report as soon as
practicable.”

Dr. Smith supported this resolution by a speech
remarkable for its clearness and force, eliciting an
animated discussion, in which Crandall and Adams,
of New England, Dow and Cass, of New Hamp-
shire, Slicer, of Baltimore, and Green, of Tennes-
see, were prominent.

On the 7th of May, the subject of slavery came
before the General Conference in a more imposing
form. The Rev. Francis A. Harding, a member
of the Baltimore Conference, had become con-
nected by marriage with slavery, and having failed
to manumit these slaves, had been suspended, and
had appealed from the decision of the Baltimore
Conference. The case had been referred to a com-
mittee of the Baltimore Conference, with the fol-
lowing result:

“The committee reported that Mr. Harding
had become possessed of five slaves: one named
Harry, aged fifty-two; one woman, named Maria,
aged fifty; one man, named John, aged twenty-
two; a girl, named , aged thirteen; and a

 
M. E. Church, South. 15

child, aged two years; and recommended the fol-
lowing preamble and resolution for adoption:

“¢Whereas, the Baltimore Conference cannot,
and will not, tolerate slavery in any of its mem-
bers—

“‘Resolved, That Brother Harding be required
to execute a deed of manumission, and have the
same enrolled in the proper court, and give to this
Conference, during this present session, a pledge
that this shall be done during the present year.’

“Brother Harding having stated the impossi-
bility, with his views, of his compliance with this
resolution, Mr. Collins moved for his suspension
until he gave sufficient assurance of his compli-
ance.

“The matter was again referred to a committee
of five, for farther investigation, who reported
that they had entirely failed to induce Brother
Harding to comply with the wishes of the Con-
ference.

“Brothers Collins and Emory moved the fol-
lowing resolution, which was adopted:

‘Resolved, That Brother Harding be suspended
until the next Annual Conference, or until he as-
sures the Episcopacy that he has taken the neces-
sary steps to secure the freedom of his slaves.’”

Although the question of slavery had frequently
been brought before the General Conference, yet
on no previous occasion had it assumed such a
16 Organization of the

commanding aspect as now. The Baltimore Con-
ference had previously acted with the South in
resisting the encroachments of abolitionism, and
had wielded a potent influence in arresting its
tide. The action of that body in the case of Mr.
Harding had been extrajudicial, and from their
decision he had very properly appealed to the
General Conference, where he had the right to
expect protection. Bishop Soule was in the chair
when the appeal was presented, and remarked that
“the question will arise, according to the Disci-
pline, whether the General Conference will admit
this appeal.” On motion, the appeal was admitted,
upon which Bishop Soule called upon the appel-
lant to state the ground of his appeal.

The discussion in the case of Mr. Harding was
quite protracted. It commenced on the 7th of
May, and was concluded on the 11th. Dr. Wil-
liam A. Smith, of Virginia, conducted the appeal
on the part of Mr. Harding, while John A. Collins,
of Baltimore, had charge of the case on the part
of the Baltimore Conference.

The speeches delivered on that occasion by
these distinguished gentlemen, were equal to their
reputation.

The speech of Dr. Smith, so masterly in argu-
ment, so replete with proof, and so overwhelm-
ingly convincing, merits preservation. Dr. Smith
said:
M. EL. Church, South. 17

I appear before the General Conference, at the
-instance of the appellant, to state his case to the
best of my ability. In entering upon this duty,
especially as the case involves the question of
slavery, it is proper that I should make some pre-
liminary remarks personal to myself.

I am aware, from the use that has been made
of my name within the last few years in various
journals, in different sections of the country, it is
reasonable to suppose that I entertain personally
hostile feelings toward those who differ from me.
I wish to disavow it. My own opinions on the
subject have been made up for years. But these
opinions have never been permitted with me, so
far as I am competent to understand myself, to
originate unchristian feelings to any honest man
who differs with me. I have always held myself
to be, and now do, an antislavery man—not,
however, an abolitionist in any sense of the word.
And in this I differ not from my Methodist breth-
ren in the ministry and out of it. The sense
which I attach to antislavery will, in the course
of the observations I shall make on the merits of
this case, be explained. In the present case I do
not know if I am not called upon to represent an
abolitionist, though a Southern man myself. I do
not symbolize with the brother on the subject of
slavery. I differ with him almost as widely as I
do from any abolitionist, North or Hast. And I do,
18 Organization of the

sir, with the more’ cheerfulness enter upon the
defense of this case, being actuated by a sense of
justice, because I believe, whatever may have
been the design, (and I have not a solitary doubt
that the design was a good one,) this brother has
been wronged, and deeply wronged, by the de-
cision in his case.

I learn from the journals of the Baltimore Con-
ference, and from his own statement, that he
entered as a probationer in the ministry in 1839,
and in 1843 was ordained, in the regular course,
an Elder in the Methodist Episcopal Church. On
the 8th of February, in 1844, he became connected
by marriage with Miss Swan, in the State of
Maryland. At the session of the Conference in
March last he was called up for examination, and
from the journal of that body I learn his Presiding
Elder stated that, by his late marriage, he had
become connected with slavery. The Conference
appointed a committee to investigate the subject.
That committee reported. Their report you have
heard read; it requires him to pledge himself that,
during the year, he would execute a deed securing
to the slaves their liberty. These slaves belonged

to his wife by the demise of her parents. Let
that be distinctly remembered. I understand that
Brother Harding, for specific reasons, refused to
comply with the decision of the Conference. It is
due to him to state, that I could have wished the
M. £. Church, South. 19

journals of the Conference had been kept as the
rule requires they should be kept; that all the
questions and all the answers put to the accused
had been matter of record. This, however, is not
the case. The proceedings of the Conference
alone, so far as regards the resolutions moved and
adopted, make up the journals of that Conference,
and by consequence we have not the legal, au-
thorized testimony, required by the Book of Dis-
cipline. I must, therefore, sir, rely for the facts
that are important to a due consideration of this
case, upon the correct and honest memory of the
representatives of the Baltimore Conference. I
therefore say that’ if, in relating any thing of im-
portance, not on the records of the Conference, I
should be found in their judgment in error—for it
is not my purpose to misrepresent the history of
this case—they will point out the error. I under-
stand from the individual himself, and from some
members of that Conference, that when the decision
was read, he refused at once to comply with
the demand of the Conference on the following
grounds :—

First. That by the nature of the laws of the
State of Maryland he did not become the owner
of the slaves. They were held by his wife by
descent from her parents, and that he had tkere-
fore no right to execute the deed required by the
Conference.
20 Organization of the

Secondly. That if it were not so, the laws of
the State of Maryland do not permit the liberated
slave to enjoy liberty, and that, therefore, under
the rule of Discipline, he was not required to
comply with the condition. He maintained, there-
fore, that the pledge was impracticable, and con-
trary to the rule of Discipline; and, thirdly, that
it would be in its practical results inhuman.
And why? Because the demand, if carried out
by him, without the consent of these slaves, would
separate parents from children and other friends,
which, without their consent, he, as a conscientious
man, could not consent to do.

But while he thus refused a compliance with
the proposed condition, he nevertheless tendered
to the Conference the following pledge, in his own
name and that of his wife, that he would have
them removed to the colony in Africa, or to any
free State in the Union, where they might be per-
mitted to enjoy their freedom, at any time when
he could do so with their consent. But pledge
himself to fulfill the condition made by the Con-
ference, with or without their consent, and thus
sever the dearest ties on earth, he, as a humane
and conscientious man, could not consent to do.
T am now relating what the journals of the Balti-
more Conference should have shown. Let the
Conference understand that I am repeating the
pledges made by this brother in my own language;
M. FE. Church, South. 21

but I submit it to the delegation whether I give
substantially the pledges he gave. If not, cor-
rect me on the spot, and do not leave me to labor
in the dark.

Mr. Griffith. I understand you to say that he
gave a pledge to remove them to any free State.
I have no recollection of such a pledge. If ten-
dered, it would have been accepted, as perfectly
satisfactory.

Mr. Gere. Brother Griffith may not have heard
the pledge, but he did, more than once, make that
pledge in the presence of the Conference.

Mr. Collins. I attended to this case with great
particularity, and had something todo withit. IEf
Brother Harding ever made such a pledge, it did
not reach my ears. And when he said that, with
the consent of his wife and the slaves, he would
send them to Liberia, I asked him if that consent
could be obtained, and he answered in the negative.

Mr. Gere. Brother Collins is correct in saying
that consent could not be obtained; but I clearly
recollect the point spoken to. He would have
preferred sending them to Liberia; but when the
Conference desired it, he said he would permit
them to go to any free State.

Mr. Slicer. I have no recollection of his agree-
ing to their going to a free State; but I do dis-
tinctly recollect that he put the issue of their
freedom on their consent to go to Liberia.
22 Organization of the

Mr. Collins. On the basis of two 7s. Jf his
wife and 7 his slaves consented, neither of
which could he promise for.

Mr. Davis. What is stated by Brother Slicer
is correct. He did say, that if these colored per-
sons were willing to go to Liberia, and if his wife
would consent, he should be willing that they
should go.

Dr. Smith. Brother Gere, do you recollect
distinctly whether Brother Harding said as you
have stated ?

Mr. Gere. I think those were the words, to
the best of my recollection.

Mr. Drake said he thought oral testimony ought
not to be taken.

Bishop Soule. I have admitted it at Brother
Smith’s instance.

Dr. Smith. What redress would there be with-
out this? The laws require that the Annual Con-
ference shall keep a record of every question and
answer, both great and small. Has that been
done?

Mr. Collins. This small matter may be disposed
of at once. Brother Harding admitted the fact.
We wanted no testimony, and we took none.
Brother Harding was testimony against himself.

Bishop Soule. I take it for granted that you
have no other proper testimony but what is pre-
sented to you in those journals; that there was
M. E. Church, South. 23

not a witness called—no testimony given. You
have heard the whole of the matter so far as it is
on the records, and it is, I presume, to supply this
defectiveness that he calls for those points from
the delegates.

A member made some observation, and Bishop
Soule answered that Dr. Smith would call for any
witness he might want.

Dr. Smith. I do not know, sir, that I would
care to meet every member of this Conference on
the subject. I know that it is not admissible, but
still I have, myself, no particular objection to it.
I feel obliged by the reference made to Discipline.
What is the meaning of Discipline? That your
journal should contain every thing—

Mr. Collins. It does.

Dr. Smith (emphatically). Stick a peg there.
A resolution is passed at the Baltimore Conference,
requiring the appellant to submit to certain condi-
tions. He refuses. Does the journal state under
what circumstances? And do not the merits of the
case rest on the circumstances? Why, sir, the
course pursued shows that the matter rests just
there. One says, if Mr. Harding had refused with
such a declaration, there would have been no dis-
pute about it. In the judgment of all who had
taken any interest in the merits of this case, it
turned on the manner and circumstances of his
refusal. Then why not record it? It proves a
24 Organization of the

defectiveness in the journal. Upon that journal
we rely for the prosecution, and they upon it for
the defense. But behold you, sir, on the very
point at issue it is silent! Who shall suffer the
wrong here? The appellant or the Baltimore
Conference? Who are in the wrong that the
journal is thus defective? I leave it to this Con-
ference to decide, every man in his own mind. I
am, sir, entitled to the oral testimony in the ab-
sence of the correct record which it was the duty
of that Annual Conference to furnish us with. And
that testimony goes to sustain us. What is the
testimony? “I clearly remember,” says Brother
Gere, “as clearly as if I had heard it this morn-
ing, that Brother Harding said, over and over
again, that with the consent of the servants, he
stood pledged, and pledged his wife, to send them
to Liberia; or, with their consent, to let them go
to any free State in the Union.”

Mr. Collins. If you understood his wife to be
pledged, you are certainly mistaken.

Mr. Gere, on being appealed to, said that, as
distinctly as he could remember, the words were,
“T pledge on my own behalf, and that of my
wife, that, if they consent, they shall go to a free
State.”

Mr. Hildt. I think Brother Gere must be mis-
taken. Conference was deeply interested in this
subject, and I think every member would pay
M. E. Church, South. 25

attention; and I do not recollect that Mr. Har-
ding at any time said that he was willing, with
the consent of his wife, that the slaves should go
to a free State.

Dr. Smith. Well, if there were twenty present
who did not hear it, that is no proof that it did not
take place. Brother Collins was involved in the
matter, and the other brethren had their feelings
warmly enlisted, and it is no wonder that they
did not hear all that Brother Harding said on this
subject. I think you will find that they were
so enlisted to carry out their own purposes—
honest as they felt they were—that they urged the
brother to comply with their condition, intending
to investigate the propriety of it hereafter. You
cannot suppose they would take a course of this
kind unless their feelings were excited, and so
excited that they did not hear what is in the clear
and distinct remembrance of the brother himself,
and of many more, if we had them all here. Others
not recollecting it, is no proof that it did not take
place. But I have positive proof that he did make
this declaration. Its not appearing on the record
is not our fault, but the fault of the Conference,
and we are entitled to the positive testimony. I
shall, therefore, assume that Brother Harding said,
that, with the consent of these servants, they
should be sent to any State where they could

enjoy their freedom. The Conference, however,
2
26 Organization of the

we learn, adopted the report of the committee,
notwithstanding the pledges given by Mr. Harding
—a report binding him to make the required
pledge of manumission. Near the close of the
Conference his case was called up, and he again
required to comply with the decision of the Con-
ference. He again refused. At this stage of the
proceedings Brother Steele moved a resolution to
locate him. This was ruled out. (No, from Mr.
Collins.)

Mr. Harding. There was a resolution proposed
by Brother Steele to have me located, and it was
ruled out by the President.

Dr. Smith. And ruled out by the President?

Mr. Collins. I think it was withdrawn.

Mr. Harding. Brother Steele made the mo-
tion, and Bishop Waugh ruled it out.

Mr. Sargent. I was not the Secretary of the
Baltimore Conference at the last session, but I
had a seat adjoining Brother Steele when he made
the motion to locate him. He did withdraw the
motion, and at my suggestion.

Dr. Bangs. It must be very unpleasant to the
speaker to be interrupted, but I wish to speak to
a point of order in reference to oral testimony.
Must not the speaker confine himself to the
record? If the journal is not complete, the case
can be quashed or nonsuited, and sent back. It
is competent for him to make that appeal, but I
M. E. Church, South. 27

insist that it is not in order to travel out of the
record.

Dr. Smith. I could not show that the record
-is incomplete without reference to oral testi-
mony.

Mr. Early. What brother cannot see that he
is opening and amplifying his case? Will not the
Baltimore Conference have the right to do the
same in reply? Are you constantly to stop him,
and confine him to the record? Permit them both
to amplify, and let them correct him at the proper
time.

Bishop Soule. I should not have permitted
one of these queries to be put only at the instance
of the speaker, who requested at the outset, that,
if he erred, the delegation would set him right on
the spot, to save time and labor in the premises.

Dr. Smith. Well, sir, by the testimony. of the
brethren, a resolution was moved to locate, which,
by suggestion, was withdrawn. I wish the Con-
ference not to forget that; it may appear that this
point has a great deal to do with the final issue.
Brother Collins then moved the suspension of the
appellant,and Brother Slicer moved for a committee
farther to investigate the case. The committee was
appointed. They met, and appellant appeared
before that committee, and submited the following
paper from William D. Merrick, of Maryland,
United States Senator from the first Congressional
28 Organization of the

District, touching the legal points involved in the
case: ;

* “At the request of Mr. Harding, I have to state
that, under the laws of Maryland, no slave can be
emancipated to remain in that State, nor unless
provision be made by the person emancipating him
for his removal from the State, which removal
must take place, unless for good and sufficient
reason the competent authorities grant permission
to the manumitted slave to remain.

“There has lately (winter of 1843) been a stat-
ute enacted by the State Legislature, securing to
married females the property (slaves of course
included) which was theirs at the time of their
marriage, and protecting it from the power and
liabilities of their husbands.

(Signed) “Wm. D. Mrrricx.”

This was read before the committee, but they
were so occupied in “laboring” with the brother,
to bring him to terms of submission, that it seems
they entirely overlooked the opinion of this gen-
tleman, and laying aside the legal view. which
illustrated the whole case, proceeded to make up
their report, saying that they had failed to reduce
the brother to terms, though the record shows
that they were appointed to envestigate the case.
Yet they report about bringing him to terms.
The Conference, then, on motion of Brothers Col-
lins and Emory, resolved to suspend the appellant
M. E. Church, South. 29

from his ministerial standing until the next session
of Conference, or such time as he'should give satis-
faction to the Episcopacy that he had secured the
manumission of the slaves. From this decision,
sir, Brother Harding gave notice of his intention
to appeal, and is now before the General Confer-
ence in prosecution of his design. J have thus
gone through the statement of the case as I find
it in the journals, and from oral testimony, because
of the defectiveness of the journal itself.

The ground on which I rest this appeal is briefly
this:

First. The appellant violated no rule of Dis-
cipline in refusing to comply with the condition
of the Baltimore Conference. Secondly. But on
the contrary, the rule of the Church makes pro-
vision in his favor. Thirdly. And, therefore, his
suspension is unauthorized, and should be re-
versed.

If it be the pleasure of the Conference for me
to proceed in the investigation of this subject, I
propose to do so; but if they think it would be
more in order for the defense to respond, I am
ready and willing to give place that they may do
so. Ido not wish to forestall, and ask no right
more than to state the case, and the grounds of
our appeal.

Mr. Morgan said, in reference to Mr. Gere’s
statement, that there had been two cases before
30 Organization of the

the Baltimore Conference involving the question
of slavery—those of Mr. Harding and Mr. Hans-
berger. Mr. Harding did consent to send his
slaves to Liberia, if their consent and that of his
wife could be obtained; but the other was willing
to emancipate his, provided certain arrangements
could be made.

Dr. Smith. The ground we take is, that the
appellant violated no rule of Discipline; on the
contrary, the rules of the Church make provision
in his favor, and, therefore, his suspension by the
Baltimore Conference is unauthorized, and should
be reversed. Because, under the law of Mary-
land, in which State he married, he did not come,
by his marriage, to be the owner of the property
which fell to his wife. As, therefore, he was not
the owner of a single slave, he could not manumit
one. The Conference required an impossibility.
In proof thereof I will read an opinion of Judge
Key. I suppose that this Conference would have
no hesitation about receiving the opinion of that
gentleman. He says:

“The Reverend Mr. Harding having married
Miss Swan, who, at the time of her marriage, was
entitled to some slaves, I am requested to say,
whether he can legally manumit them or not?
By an act of Assembly, no person can manumit a
slave in Maryland; and by another act of our
Assembly, a husband has no other or farther right
M. E. Church, South. 31

to his wife’s slaves than their labor, while he lives.
He can neither sell nor liberate them. Neither
can he and his wife, either jointly or separately,
manumit her slaves, by deed, or otherwise. <A
reference to the Acts of Assembly of Maryland
will show this. Epmunp Kry.

“Prince George county, April 25, 1844.”

I would also refer to the Laws of the State of
Maryland, Chap. 293: .

“Section 1. Be zt enacted by the General Assembly
of Maryland, That from and after the passage of
this act, any married woman may become seized
or possessed of any property, real or of slaves, by
direct bequest, demise, gift, purchase, or distribu-
tion, in her own name, and as of her own proper-
ty; provided, the sam? does not come from her
husband after coverture.”

Now, sir, by this late act of Maryland, a wo-
man can become an owner of property in her own
name, though married.

“Sec. 2. And be it enacted, That hereafter, when
any woman possessed of a property in slaves shall
marry, her property in such slaves, and their natu-
ral increase, shall continue to her, notwithstanding
her coverture, and she shall have, hold, and pos-
sess the same as her separate property, exempt
from any liability for the debts or contracts of the
husband.”

Now, from this section, we perceive that the
32 Organization of the

property of a woman does not pass to the hus-
band, as by the original law, and as is probably
the case in other States of the Union.

“Sec. 8. And be it enacted, That when any
woman during coverture shall become entitled to,
or possessed of slaves, by conveyance, gift, in-
heritance, distribution, or otherwise, such slaves,
together with their natural increase, shall inure
and belong to the wife in like manner as is above
provided as to slaves which she may possess at
the time of marriage.

“Sec. 4. And be it enacted, That the control and
management of all such slaves, the direction of
their labor, and the receipts of the productions
thereof, shall remain to the husband agreeably to
the laws heretofore in force. All suits to recover
the property or possession of such slaves shall be
prosecuted or defended, as the case may be, in
the joint names of the husband and wife; in case
of the death of the wife, such slaves shall descend
and go to her children and their descendants, sub-
ject to the use of the husband during life, without
liability to his creditors; and if she die without
leaving children living, or descendants of such
children living, they shall descend and go to the
husband.”

From these we learn that, were a husband,
marrying a woman with slaves, to manumit those
slaves, any person who might inherit property
M. E. Church, South. 33

from his wife might make him pay for every one
so manumitted, because of the injury done to
them by such an act of manumission.

“Sec. 5. Be tt enacted, That the slaves owned
by a feme-covert under the provisions of this act,
may be sold by the joint deed of the husband and
wife, executed, proved, and recorded agreeably to
the laws now in force in regard to the conveyance
of real estate of feme-coverts, and not otherwise.

“Sec. 6. And be it enacted, That a wife shall
have a right to make a will and give all her pro-
perty or any part thereof to her husband, and to
other persons with the consent of the husband
subscribed to said will; provided always, that the
wife shall have been privately examined by the
witnesses to her will, apart and out of the pres-
ence and hearing of her husband, whether she
doth make the same will freely and voluntarily,
and without being induced thereto by fear or
threats of or ill usage by said husband, and says
she does it willingly and freely; provided, that
no will under this act shall be valid unless made
at least sixty days before the death of the testa-
tre.

It is perfectly manifest that the opinion of Judge
Key is correct, and that the appellant in this case
did not possess the right of property in any one
of these five slaves that his wife held by the de-

mise of her parents. The Baltimore Conference
O*
34 Organization of the

said, “Manumit your slaves,” thus requiring that
appellant to dispose of property that did not be-
long to him; to set at liberty those in whom he
had no right, and over whom he had no control
whatever. Why, they might with equal propriety
tell him to unhorse the first Methodist minister he
found on the highway, and turn the horse loose
beyond the power of his proper owner, or to manu-
mit the slaves of every man in the State as a
condition of holding his membership in their body.
Mr. Harding had as much right to the horse, bri-
dle, and saddle-bags of his brethren as to the slaves
in question, and just as much right to every slave
in the State as to these, and could with as much
propriety execute a deed of manumission on their
behalf. .I say, then, that without doubt the Balti-
more Conference required of him to do that which
it was impossible for him todo. Iam ata loss to
know how that Conference could commit such an
error. It really is so marvelous that Iam utterly
at a loss to account for it.

Secondly. If the doctrine I have just laid down
could in any sense be held as doubtful, though I
cannot see how it can possibly be so held, and it
should therefore be said that he had property in
the slaves of his wife, then the rule of Discipline,
Sec. 10, pages 209, 210, makes provision in his
favor.

“We declare that we are as much as ever con-
M. KE. Church, South. 35

vinced 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 emancipa-
tion, and permit the liberated slave to enjoy free-
dom.” :

Now we maintain that, under this provisional
exception to the general rule of our Church, he
was not required to manumit these slaves, because
he could not legally effect that manumission, even
if they belonged to him, in that State. Such also
is expressly the meaning of the second answer:

“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 is a different phraseology expressing the
same idea, and has been so decided by the General
Conference. A legal emancipation! What is the
common-sense meaning of this? Such an eman-
cipation as will put the slave in possession of his
freedom in that State. Now could the appellant
give them such liberty? I hold in my hand an
extract from the Laws of Maryland on this sub-
ject, from “Dorsey’s Laws of Maryland,” in 1831.

“And be tt enacted, That it shall hereafter be
the duty of every clerk of a county in this State,
36 Organization of the

whenever a deed of manumission shall be left in
his office for record, and of every register of wills
in every county of this State, whenever a will
manumitting a slave or slaves shall be admitted
to probate, to send, within five days thereafter,
(under a penalty of ten dollars for each and every
omission so to do, to be recovered before any jus-
tice of the peace, one-half whereof shall go to the
informer, and the other half to the State,) an ex-
tract from such deed or will, stating the names,
number, and ages of the slave or slaves so manu-
mitted, a list whereof, in the case of the will so
proved, shall be filed therewith by the executor
or administrator, to the Board of Managers for
Maryland for removing the people of color of said
State; and it shall be the duty of said Board, on
receiving the same, to notify the American Coloni-
zation Society, or the Maryland State Colonization
Society, thereof, and to propose to such Society
that they shall engage, at the expense of said
Society, to remove said slave or slaves so manu-
mitted to Liberia; and if the said Society shall so
engage, then it shall be the duty of the said Board
of Managers to have the said slave or slaves de-
livered to the agent of such Society, at such place
as the said Society shall appoint for receiving such
slave or slaves, for the purpose of such removal,
at such time as the said Society shall appoint; and
in case the said Society shall refuse so to receive
M. E. Church, South. 37

and remove the person or persons so manumitted
and offered, or in case the said person or persons
shall refuse so to be removed, then it shall be the
duty of the said Board of Managers to remove the
said person or persons to such other place or places
beyond the limits of this State as the said Board
shall approve of, and the said person or persons
shall be willing to go to, and provide for their re-
ception and support such place or places as the
Board may think necessary, until they shall be
able to provide for themselves, out of any money
that may be earned by their hire, or may be
otherwise provided for that purpose; and in case
the said person or persons shall refuse to be re-
moved to any place, beyond the limits of this
State, and shall persist in remaining therein, then
it shall be the duty of said Board to inform the
sheriff of the county wherein such person or per-
sons may be, of such refusal, and it shall there-
upon be the duty of said sheriff forthwith to
arrest, or cause to be arrested, the said person or
persons so refusing to emigrate from this State,
and transport the said person or persons beyond
the limits of this State; and all slaves shall be
capable of receiving manumission for the purpose
of removal as aforesaid, with their consent, of
whatever age, any law to the contrary notwith-
standing.” (Chap. 281, Sec. 3.)
We find a supplement to this law in 1832.
38 Organization of the

“Chap. 145, Sec. 1—Be tt enacted by the Cen-
eral Assembly of Maryland, That whenever the
Board of Managers, appointed under the act to
which this is a supplement, shall inform the sheriff
of any county of the refusal to remove any per-
son or persons therein mentioned, and shall pro-
vide a sum sufficient to defray the removal of said
person or persons beyond the limits of the State,
every sheriff then failing to comply, within the
term of one month, with the duties prescribed in the
third section of the act aforesaid, shall forfeit fifty
dollars for every person he shall neglect so to re-
move, to be recoverable in the County Court of
his county by action of debt on indictment.

“Seo. 2. And be it enacted, That nothing herein
contained shall be construed to repeal any part of
the act to which this is a supplement.”

The foregoing is a copy, corrected by myself,
from the acts referred to, as published in “ Dorsey’s
Laws of Maryland.” Grorce H. Moors,

Ass’t Librarian N. Y. Hist. Society.

May 6, 1844.

Now from these laws it is perfectly manifest
that if there be a State to which the provisional
exception of the Discipline applies, it is the State
of Maryland. The laws of Virginia are not by
any means so strict. The brethren from Virginia
will agree with me, that they are by no means so
strict. And no one can read these laws without
M. E. Church, South. 39

concluding that it is very difficult to manumit
slaves there, so that they can enjoy their liberty
there; that it is indeed impossible, so far as the
laws of the State are concerned. And if they
are free there, it is because the laws of the State
are not executed. It will be remembered, that it
was in conformity with the law of the State that
this brother stated his readiness to make a pledge;
and the issue is that he would not pledge himself
to do that which the laws forbade him to do, while
he was willing to do what the laws of the State
allowed, provided the slaves had belonged to him.
This, then, is the issue between the appellant and
the Baltimore Conference. He stated that he was
ready to do that which the law provided for under
the circumstances. The question will be, in the
mind of every candid hearer, shall the vote of this
General Conference side with the Baltimore Con-
ference in demanding from this brother that he
should submit to their conditions without authority
Srom the rules of the Church, in the face of the
very laws of that State that gave him birth, and
afforded him protection in his rights and privi-
leges? Or, shall their decision be in favor of the
appellant, who stated that he was ready, and did
pledge himself to fulfill the only condition in his
power, by sending the slaves to Liberia, or to re-
move them beyond the limits of the State?

The third point in the general argument is, this
40 Organization of the

construction of the Discipline has already received
the sanction of the General Conference. I allude
to the case of the Westmoreland local preachers
four years ago. The Conference will bear in mind
that certain members of our Church in the State
of Virginia appealed over and over again to the
Baltimore Conference, as licensed local preachers,
for ordination. The Baltimore Conference as
often responded, “We will not ordain you, because
you hold slaves.” The applicants said, as citizens
of Virginia, they were not bound to give up their
slaves, because the laws of their State would not
allow them to enjoy freedom; therefore they could
not actually give them freedom, and that this
clause of Discipline made provision for their case.
The Baltimore Conference maintained a different
doctrine, as you very well know. The discussion
was painfully protracted. It involved a great
deal of feeling within the bounds of the Balti-
more Conference. The complainants first went to
the General Conference at Cincinnati in 1836, and
asked to be united to the Virginia Conference, but
the Baltimore friends opposed. They were clever
fellows, and could not be spared, though, according
to the doctrines held by the Baltimore Conference,
they were practically sinners. But now they
were very clever fellows! I know, sir, that an
unworthy motive could not enter the bosom of the
members of the Baltimore Conference on a subject
M. E. Church, South. 41

of the kind; but because of the unfortunate and
unfriendly aspect of the case, it was believed in
Virginia, much to the discredit of the Baltimore
Conference, that it was because of the loaves and
fishes. Well, sir, failing in their application to the
Cincinnati Conference of 1836, they came up to
the General Conference at Baltimore in 1840, and
asked them to vindicate their rights by settling
this issue. The General Conference referred the
memorial to an able committee, of which Dr. Bas-
com was chairman—a committee fully competent
to respond to the memorial. ‘Their report was
submitted to the General Conference, and adopted
by them. The whole of it has been published.
It contains an able and conclusive argument vindi-
cating the construction put upon the clause of the
Discipline by the memorialists, and concludes with
the following resolution:

“Resolved, by the delegates of the several An-
nual Conferences, in General Conference assem-
bled, That under the provisional exception 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 _ per-
mit the liberated slave to enjoy freedom, consti-
tutes 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,
42 Organization of the

and cannot, therefore, be considered as operating
any forfeiture of right in view of such election or
ordination.”

This, sir, was adopted by the General Confer-
ence. And if language can settle any point on
earth, the language of this resolution goes to set-
tle the construction we have put on this rule of
Discipline, viz., that the brethren holding slaves
in those States that do not permit the liberated
slave to enjoy freedom, are not, under the Dis-
cipline of our Church, required to emancipate their
slaves.

Now, sir, I beg to call the attention of the
Conference to this point. This action of the
General Conference was intended finally to settle
the long-contested issue between the Baltimore
Conference and certain members of the Church,
and does it not settle it fairly and unequivocally?
I appeal to this Conference, if it were to be looked
for that an Annual Conference, cherishing due re-
spect for the decisions of the General Conference,
should proceed within four years after the passage
of this very resolution to trample it under their
feet, and act on another construction of the rule
of Discipline, defining the terms of membership,
and thus throw overboard one of their own body?
Was this to be expected? So far as I feel myself
entitled to any judgment in this matter, I say it
was not! The act was wrong, and we had a right,
M. FE. Church, South. 43

under the circumstances, to expect that the Balti-
more Conference would not thus have disregarded
the decision of the General Conference. I take
it upon me to say, that the decision referred to
settled that point; and the appellant was not re-
quired under the laws of the State of Maryland,
and under that decision upon our laws of Disci-
pline, to manumit these slaves, because the act
would not secure their freedom. I need not stop
to notice, that, though that law was passed, and
that report and resolution adopted for the govern-
ment of the Baltimore Conference, they have
never ordained these men.

Mr. Collins. That’s the fact. It was no law;
it was only a resolution.

Dr. Smith. We maintain, therefore, that the
refusal to comply with the demand of the Balti-
more Conference was no violation of the rules of
Discipline; and also, that, as a conscientious and
humane man, Mr. Harding could do no more than
he proposed to do. It is admitted by all the dele-
gation that he was ready to send every one of
these slaves, with their consent, to Liberia. What
more could he do, as a humane man? Should he
send them there without their consent? Should
he separate parents and children, and their friends,
without their consent, and compel them to find
refuge in the bosom of Africa? Should he have
done so? He was willing so to do, with their
44 Organization of the

consent, and I ask what more could humanity ask
or Christianity require? Let me at this point
briefly examine the requisitions made upon him.
They wanted him to hold two of the slaves in
perpetual bondage. Did you mark that? Yes!
the decision of that Conference required him to
hold two of the slaves in perpetual bondage—one
till he was twenty-eight, and two till they were
twenty-three! Now, sir, I beg leave to ask what
Eastern man, consistently with his principles, can
vote to sustain the Baltimore Conference in this
instance? Stick to your principles, abide by them,
and you cannot sustain them in their action! On
the other hand, Harding, on the principle of the
most ultra Eastern member here, pledges himself
to let them go to Africa or any free State. What
more could he do? What more would the laws
permit him to do? And what Eastern man will
fail to sustain him in this? He intended this, and
does now intend it, so far as he has a right to con-
trol his movements on the subject.

My third general ground is, that the spirit of
our Discipline does not, any more than the letter
of it, justify the Baltimore Conference in their
suspension of this brother. The spirit of the
Discipline is a vague term, but I may explain. I
mean, then, that the general design and tendency
of the rules of our Discipline on the subject of
slavery do not justify that Conference in their
M. E. Church, South. 45

course. I hold that the rules of our Discipline
on this subject are exclusively conservative. The
whole Discipline is conservative, and I claim to
be a conservative myself. I stand by Methodist
Discipline; and if any man claims to be conser-
vative, and will not stand on the same broad
platform, I deny that he is one, and will contest it
every inch. I repeat, our Discipline is conserva-
tive. Hear it: “What shall be done for the ex-
tirpation of the evil of slavery? Ans. 1. We
declare that we are as much as ever convinced of
the great evil of slavery.” I believe it—with all
my heart I subscribe to it. And I can repeat that
language with a feeling that none, except those
from the South, like circumstanced, can possibly
do. I say it is an evil, because I feel it to be an
evil. And who cannot say the same that has trod
‘the soil of the South? It is an evil. The Dis-
cipline declares the truth, the whole truth, and, so
far as it relates to the case, nothing but the truth;
and a truth which, from our connection with the
subject, we are not ashamed to own, nor afraid to
proclaim on the house-tops, here or elsewhere. Is
not this enough? What more can the brethren
ask? What more would they ask from the South
as a sacrifice on the altar of union than this broad,
unqualified declaration? This, sir, is unquestion-
ably conservatism. But, sir, it is not such con-
servatism as is represented by the cabs of your
46 Organization of the

city, always, when the horse is taken out, letting
down on one side. No, sir, that is not the prin-
ciple of conservatism, for conservatism always
involves principles appropriate to two sides. On
the other hand, I should say that while the Dis-
cipline deprecates the evil of slavery, it requires
the members of the Church within those States
to conform their action to the rules or laws of
those States in which they live. This is assuming
the doctrine that though slavery is an evil, and a
great evil, it is not necessarily a sin. There’s the
other side of the question. And is it not clearly
so? Now, we of the South take both sides of the
question—it is a great evil, 2 ts not necessarily a
sin; and we ask no more of you. But we main-
tain that it is not a sin, and we demand this con-
cession on your part. ‘They are conservatives
who take both sides, and not those who are one-
sided in their doctrine, practice, and votes.
To-recur to the principles or position we have
just laid down: we say that slavery is an evil,
and that Southern people know and feel it to be
an evil. Who knows how much the shoe pinches
but he who wears it? And who more than we
who have been compelled to submit to it, from
our cradle to the present moment; and on whom
the wrong has been inflicted by these very breth-
ren of the North—the North, who refuse to help
us in this our calamity? Who know it so well to
M. E. Church, South. AT

be an evil as they who, but a few years ago, were
ready to take legislative action on the subject?
In 1831, so rife was the popular feeling and the
popular sentiment on this subject, that there is not
a doubt—so sorely did we in Virginia feel the
evil—that long before this day some act of gradual
manumission would have passed but for that which,
after all, may prove to have been the happy inter-
ference of Northern abolitionists. I know this is
strange ground for you to hear me take, but
which I think I shall make as clear as the light
of heaven to the mind of every candid hearer in
this Conference. We felt the evils and groaned
under them so deeply, and so heartily did we long
to get rid of them, that from the debates in 1831,
in the Virginia Legislature, and the popular senti-
ment expressed in the pulpit and through the
press, no doubts were entertained that the State
was about to adopt immediate measures for its
gradual extirpation. Eighteen thousand dollars
per annum were appropriated to advance the colo-
nization interest only as an intimation that any
reasonable claim for colonization upon the treas-
ury of Virginia should be honored. Why was it
not carried out? Why, just at this juncture, when
the bow of promise was beginning to span the
heavens, and the long-prayed-for hour was about
to come upon us in all its glory, behold this dark
cloud rises in the North and Hast, and though but
48 Organization of the

the size of a man’s hand in the beginning, it in-
creased and passed over the whole North! It
flung the dark shadows of its coming events over
the moral hemisphere of the South, and mantled
all in sackcloth and mourning! The tide of colo-
nization was arrested—it rolled back, and the
friends of the cause were left to mourn over their
disappointments. And yet, in the face of all this,
results have shown that while God never can di-
rect any thing that is wrong, yet his hand was in
this matter, in permitting the error, or the wicked-
ness—I will not say which—to bring about a good
result. At that very time your agents in Liberia,
resident colored men, wrote back: “Stay your
hand. If you are not more select in the choice
of those you send here, we shall be reduced to a
heathen state. Send us colonists, but send us se-
lect men. Don’t send us corn-field hands—they
are not fit for freedom.”

This, sir, was a wise and a sage remark; not
the result of profound philosophical investigation,
it is true, but the spontaneous promptings of prac-
tical observation. And what is the principle on
which it operates? Why, that in forming a colony,
you can pour into it a heterogeneous mass, only so
far as it can be received into the body politic, and
impart strength and vigor to the body. But if,
instead of imparting strength, they give their own
character to the body, the consequences will be
M. LE. Church, South. 49

certain ruin and destruction. I will give you an
illustration. I hesitate not to say, and many will
sustain me in declaring, that if the amount of vice
and ignorance from Catholic Europe, and particu-
larly Ireland, now poured like a flood into the
bosom of this vast republic, had swept into the
infant colonies of Jamestown or Plymouth Rock,
never would you have seen this fair republic spring
up, striking its roots deep in the soil, and spread-
ing its branches from Maine to Mississippi, and
from the Atlantic almost to the Pacific Ocean.
But now, since this country has grown up to ma-
turity, and taken the elevation and power of a
great State, we can take in these vast crowds, and
yet our political and moral character remains ‘un-
harmed. The firm bases of our civil institutions
are unmoved; the deep foundations of social and
civil life have not been reached; and we are privi-
leged to cherish the hope that time, in its rapid
roll, will but strengthen and perpetuate our civil
and religious liberty, while we continue to be an
asylum for the ignorance, vice, infidelity, and what
is worse than all combined, the Popery of Europe.
Now, had Liberia been so colonized, it would have
been ruined. Such a mass as Virginia was rapidly
pouring into it would have reduced it to its origi-
nal heathen condition. What prevented such a
result? The abolition excitement, and nothing

else. Thanks to them, then, that we have a colony
3 e
50 Organization of the

on the coast of Africa to spread itself out, and
yet become an asylum for every freed slave if he
pleases to go there; and I pray God that he may
speed the happy day. I am aware that our abo-
ition brethren never intended this, and therefore
they may be compared to an enemy who plunges
a dagger into your side, but which only opens
some dangerous abscess. And you are mistaken
if you think I have any animosity against aboli-
tion brethren. I believe God will use them as
instruments, bad or good as they may be.

Now, sir, I have enlarged for a purpose which
cannot fail to have been perceived. I ask, again,
who are the conservatives? Those who maintain
one:side of the Discipline, that slavery is a great
evil, but will not concede the principle that it is
not necessarily a sin? or, are they the conserva-
tives who take both sides of the book? Such is
a conservative, and all who symbolize with him.
I have heard a different doctrine from a very un-
expected quarter. The-case has been put with
the abolitionists proper standing at one extreme,
the Southern portion of the Church standing at
the other extreme, distinguished by holding this
doctrine, that-slavery is a great political and social
blessing. Sir, did you ever hear that doctrine
advocated by a Southern minister of the Method-
ist Church in your life? I declare to you I never
heard such a doctrine before. Forty-one years
M. E. Church, South. 51

have passed over my head, twenty of which
have been devoted to the service of the Methodist
Episcopal Church, as a Southern minister, preach-
ing to the master and the slave; and never in my
life did I hear that doctrine until I heard it im-
puted to Southern brethren on the floor of this
Conference, from a man, too, who claimed to be a
conservative—a middle man, standing between the
two extremes, like a mediator, putting his hands
on both, and bidding them be reconciled. If I
understand it rightly, the Discipline is conserva-
tive, because it occupies the middle ground be-
tween the two; and so stand the Southern men.
The difference between us and either extreme, is
just the difference between plain right and plain
wrong. There is a clear, bold, vigorous line of
demarkation. The partition wall betwixt right
and wrong is as high as heaven, and it must be
scaled before an entrance can be made from the
right to the wrong. If you belong to us, take the
ground of the Discipline and law. You make an
imaginary extremity, and then assume to your-
selves to be middle men. Now on this broad
platform the Southern Church stands: Slavery is
a great evil, but beyond our control; yet not nec-
essarily a sin. We must then quietly submit to
a necessity which we cannot control or remedy, .
endeavoring to carry the gospel of salvation to
both masters and slaves.
52 Organization of the

Ultra antislavery men deny the great principles
assumed, and maintain the doctrine that slavery is
necessarily a sin under all circumstances. And
now for the application of the whole subject to
the case in hand. I regret to declare that it is
my honest conviction, that all the action of the
Baltimore Conference in this case symbolizes with
the principles of ultra abolitionism. The Disci-
pline of the Church, I have shown, clearly recog-
nizes this brother in the relation in which he stands
to slavery. The Laws of Maryland do not make
him the possessor of slaves. And yet the action
of the Baltimore Conference requires him to man-
umit them—the slaves that he never owned. A
legal opinion was given in and confirmed, and yet
they persisted in their demand! How could they
do that on the principle of the conservative char-
acter of our Discipline? They could not, yet they
did it, clearly on the doctrine that slavery is a sin
under all circumstances.

The first argument brought by the advocates
of this position is, that slavery is wrong in the
abstract. What is slavery? Why, in its very
nature it is a concrete act. What is it when taken
abstractly? Why, it is the act taken away from
all its circumstances. Take away from slavery all
_ its circumstances, and how will any man predicate
right or wrong of such a thing? It is neither
right nor is it wrong, abstracted from its circum-
M. E. Church, South. 53

stances. But perhaps, in common parlance, slavery
in the abstract is the simple overt act of slavery,
which is inseparable from circumstances. Yet we
will take it so, though it is a sort of hair-splitting
business. It is then the government of man
by physical force. Is it any thing more? Can
it possibly be any thing less? And will you un-
dertake to say that the government of man by
physical force is wrong? Government by physi-
cal force! Why, the inhabitants of Sing Sing
Prison are detained there by physical force, and
without their consent. And will you undertake
to say that such control of man by physical force
‘is wrong? I imagine, sir, that no one will say
that. What is true of an abstraction in this sense?
Why, that it is right or wrong, according to its
circumstances, as with murder. Murder itself is
wrong. Murder in the abstract is neither right
nor wrong. Taking life is right or wrong, accord-
ing to its circumstances. And if the abstract or
overt act of taking life be done according to the
established laws of the country, or in self-defense,
it is taking life on a correct principle. If done
contrary to law or with malice aforethought, it is
murder, and therefore wrong. And so with slavery.
It is right or wrong, to be justified or condemned,
according to its circumstances.

A second argument on the abstract question is,
that what is wrong in the beginning can never be-
54 Organization of the

come right by continuance. Applied to slavery, it
is this. It was wrong to bring these slaves from
Africa, and it can never be right to detain them
here. This is false in principle and in practice;
for if there be no prescription in politics by which
things once wrong become right, then all the
claims and possessions of the present generation
are wrong, and to this day founded in injustice
and oppression. And wherefore? Because there
is scarcely a government now on the earth that has
not had its origin in robbery, oppression, and
wrong, more or less; and if these can never
change, why the possessions of man all over the
world remain held in crime to this day! Take,
for example, the Norman conquest of England—
as lawless a sweep of robbery as any that ever
darkened the pages of history—and if this doc-
trine be correct, there is not a legal claim in exist-
ence in England to one foot of her soil. Take,
sir, the conquest of your own country—save my
own native State, and I am proud to make an ex-
ception in her favor—the Indian is the original
owner of the soil from which he was driven; of
the soil that gave him birth; and at this very day,
the land where sleep his fathers, back to unknown
generations, this land is his, not yours; and if the
principle laid down is just, give him back the rights
he once enjoyed, and the land that was his dear
and social home.
M. E. Church, South. 55

But, we say, that it is indispensable to the well-
being of human society, that there be principles of
prescriptive right acknowledged and acted upon,
and that the original wrong should ultimately be-
come right, when the redress of that wrong would
inflict a greater evil than the original wrong. So
slavery may have had its origin in wrong, cruelty,
oppression, and robbery; yet if the redress of that
wrong would be a greater evil than the wrong it-
self, then it is to be assumed as right. And it
remains with the opposition to show that the wrongs
can be redressed without interfering more prejudi-
cially with the institutions of society. Does any
one doubt that the patriarch Abraham was a slave-
holder, or that slavery existed among the Jews,
and that, too, under the Divine sanction, and by
Divine appointment? Of that we are assured on
the authority of God’s word. But, then, we are
sure that the Divine Being could neither appoint
nor sanction any thing that was in itself indepen-
dently and absolutely wrong. It must, therefore,
have been right, under the peculiar circumstances
of Abraham and of the Jewish nation. And what
was right in one instance may be right in another.
What were the circumstances under which slavery
was in these cases we know not—no man knows
—but we are bound to allow the fact.

What was true on the subject of slavery in the
days of the apostles? In Greece, at that time,
56 Organization of the

there were about ninety slaves to every four hun-
dred freemen; that is, about one-fifth of the whole
population were slaves; and Rome was at that
time the greatest slave-market in the world, where
millions were bought and sold under the reign of
the Cesars. Now the system of slavery in those
days was the most unhallowed that is recorded on
the pages of history; and they must know little
indeed of American slavery who put it on a foot-
ing with that of Greece and Rome. Now, if in
the days of Christ it passed unreproved, though
existing ina bold and palpable form—if there
were no warning epistles written to the Churches
on the subject at the instance: of the apostles,
surely it is fair to conclude that it is not “neces-
sarily a sin.” They could not but be cognizant of
its existence, since St. Paul himself recognizes the
relation of master and servant, or slave, on the
same principles that he did the civil government.
This was an absolute monarchy. The lives of his
subjects were at the disposal of the sovereign; St.
Paul was in the hands of the civil power, and
don’t you suppose that he saw and felt the evils
of so despotic a government? And so with slavery.
The particular authority of the master over the
slave was a great evil, yet Paul acknowledged
both the civil government and the system of
slavery. He required all Christians to submit to
the civil authority, offensive as it was; and he
M. E. Church, South. 57

required all masters to treat their slaves as became
masters, and slaves to be obedient to their mas-
ters. What did he intend by all this? Why,
that it was his duty as a minister to preach, and
watch, and labor, and thus bring about that state
of things in society that would best indicate the
necessity for a different form of government, and
a different state of society. As a private citizen,
he might have fallen out with the government, as
a matter concerning his own personal and private
feelings; but as a minister of the Church, he felt
it his duty to pursue that course which would
make a different form of government as practica-
ble as it is at all times desirable. So we of the
South see in slavery an evil; but in the circum-
stances we feel justified in our course, and, indeed,
cannot avoid it. And we feel that we should be
doing an infinitely greater wrong by altering the
condition of the slaves, under present and exist-
ing circumstances. Our duty as a Church and as
ministers is to labor by preaching to bless both
master and servant—go preach among them—get
master and servant both converted—and thus bring |
about a different state of things, and then a differ-
ent state of society will be practicable as well as
desirable; and thus, and thus only, can we occupy
the broad, conservative platform of our Discipline.

They affirm of slavery in the South, that its

origin was wicked—that the slaves were first
3%
58 Organization of the

acquired at the expense of our brother’s blood.
Admit it all. Yet the hand of God is above, and
it is his to overrule every thing for good. Go
with me to the Southern plantation, where our
missionaries have been preaching for years. Come
with me through the length and breadth of this
land! Converse with the slaves on the subject
of religion, and you will find thousands “clothed
and in their right minds”—happy in the love of
God. Their condition is better, a thousand times
better, than if they had remained in Africa. They
would there have sunk lower and lower, without
any knowledge of a Saviour, for there can be little
doubt that had not their bondage and slavery awak-
ened the sympathies of mankind in their behalf,
there would not have been such mighty efforts to
evangelize Africa and other portions of the world.
They were in darkness—gross darkness; but who
will not say that “the people who sat in darkness
have seen a great light,” and that the state of the
slaves is now better than it was before their bond-
age? I feel a deep interest in this matter. I
am emphatically a negro preacher. I watch over
them, attend their revivals, lead their classes, and
labor among them from year to year; and have a
heart as full of sympathy and love. for them as
any man’s.

What is the duty of the Methodist Episcopal
Church on the subject of slavery? There is dan-
M. EL. Church, South. 59

ger of her stepping out of the track of duty, and
engaging herself in political relations, and thus
becoming a politico-ecclesiastical establishment.
The Christian Advocate and Journal has correctly
told us that we have no right to make laws. The
very day you begin to make laws, you err, and
the laymen will then have a right to representa-
tion; and have it they must, and have it they
shall, if it can possibly be secured to them. Your
government can be defended only on the ground
that you make no laws. What, then, are you to
do? Just tell the people what are the plain laws
of God’s word. Do that, and the people will not
find fault with you; partisans may, but the intel-
ligent of other denominations, and the whole body
of your own Church, will not complain of you for
that. The ministers are set apart to explain re-
ligion, to enforce God’s laws, and teach the doc-
trines of the Bible, and should let all political
subjects alone. I have now had the right to vote
for more than twenty years, but I have never yet
exercised it. It is no part of my business to
meddle with politics. I do not, however, consider
my omission to vote as an example for imitation.
But, in regard to the principle that governs me, I
shall never reconcile it to myself to interfere with
politics farther than as a private citizen. I have
a terrible warfare against this thing. I don’t be-
lieve in this doctrine of Methodist ministers’ hav-
60 Organization of the

ing to do with politics. The genius of our gov-
ernment is against it. I think that we should
confine ourselves to our proper ministerial duties.

I suppose we ministers can never interfere with
any legislation on political matters. And our
laymen can come—[Some remarks were here lost
by the reporter.] The genius of our Church gov-
ernment requires that we confine ourselves exclu-
sively to spiritual matters. “My kingdom,” says
the Saviour, “is not of this world”—it is spirit-
ual. Any interference by this General Conference,
directly or indirectly, as an ecclesiastical council,
with any political questions or relations whatever,
is inappropriate to our duties, and extremely dan-
gerous in its results. We are destined to become
a great people. No human causes, that are likely
to be brought to bear, can prevent our becoming
the most numerous and popular branch of the
American Church. God grant that when we
come to be this great people, the glory may not
have departed from us! But when this state of
things shall come, what will be the condition of
the country and the Church, if our ministers
should not confine themselves, as ministers, exclu-
sively to their appropriate spiritual duties, and
leave the political questions and relations of the
country to be managed by the laymen of the
Church and other citizens? Why, sir, it is per-
fectly manifest, that if in that day it shall be found
M. E. Church, South. 61

that the same men, whether laymen or preachers,
who are making rules for the government of the
Church, are also at the same time members of the
different State Legislatures, or of the General Gov-
ernment, they will be making laws for the govern-
ment of the State. With the reins of civil gov-
ernment in one hand, and the reins of ecclesiasti-
cal government in the other, what will be more
easy than to unite both reins in one hand? or, in
other words, unite Church and State? This, sir,
is the unhappy result to be deprecated. It is this
that makes any action of this body upon a subject
purely political a just cause of suspicion by any
discriminating mind. Do not, then, complain of
the South, when she admonishes you to let the
subject of slavery alone, because more appropriate
to the civil legislature. The Scriptures furnish
you with no example of ecclesiastical legislation
on the subject of slavery, although it existed, in
the days of Christ and the apostles, in a far more
objectionable form than in the present day. The
duty of the Church is plain. If you would bring
around that state of things in the South, in which
a different social condition will be as practicable
as it is at all times confessedly desirable, let the
General Conference, let all the ministers in the
Church, confine themselves to their appropriate
calling—let them preach the grace of Christ—and
they will accomplish their object.
62 Organization of the

John A. Collins, an eloquent and gifted mem-
ber of the Baltimore Conference, replied to Dr.
Smith. He said:

I take the management of this case not without
diffidence. To appear in defense of one of the old-
est Annual Conferences in the Methodist Episcopal
Church; one that has always stood by the Disci-
pline of the Church, “in weal and woe;” that has
done the utmost in her power to maintain the
purity of our institutions entirely untarnished,
might be considered a matter of some surprise to
any man.

I am fortified, however, in the conviction that
the Baltimore Conference, in this matter, as in all
others of her official action, is not only pure, but
above suspicion; and she has her best defense
when her own acts speak in their own proper lan-
guage. I am aware that the delicacy of the sub-
ject has invested it with considerable interest.
Slavery and abolitionism have agitated the civil
and ecclesiastical tribunals of our land, and for a
long time convulsed the country; and, of course,
every thing that has reference to slavery, or is
connected with it, is a matter of peculiar interest.
It is supposed, and I believe it to be the fact, that
this appeal will bring up the connection of Meth-
odism and Methodist preachers with slavery more
distinctly and clearly than any other question ever
M. E. Church, South. 63

brought before this Conference; and I am fully
aware that we shall need all the prudence, and
caution, and care, and freedom from excitement,
_ that we can possibly bring to the management of
this case; and I pray God to grant us wisdom,
and prudence, and discretion, that we may fall
upon the best means to promote the glory of God
and the welfare of his Church.

I certainly was delighted to hear many of the
expressions that fell from my friend from Virginia.
I must congratulate him upon his conversion, for
until yesterday morning I knew not that he, or
those that think with him, were to be regarded as
conservative—on this question. I am delighted
to hear that they are so. I listened with pleasure
to the warm and ardent manner in which he ad-
mitted the doctrines of the Discipline, in regard
to the great evil of slavery. I was particularly
delighted at it, as well as with his declaration, that
he never had heard in the South that slavery was
to be regarded as a social good, and the confirma-
tory response of the Southern delegations. I was
gratified with all that was said, but could not help
thinking, for the life of me, of a certain resolution
passed at the Georgia Annual Conference, that
“slavery is not a moral evil!” Not a moral evil!
I should like to know what kind of an evil the
prosecutor considers slavery. On the floor of the
General Conference of 1836 and 1840, slavery was
64 Organization of the

defended by a member of his own delegation, as
in accordance with the word of God. I was
pleased at the remarks of Brother Smith yester-
day morning. I have seen a pamphlet, written
by Mr. Sims, a Methodist preacher,* in which a
very different view is presented to that which I
was glad to hear advanced by Dr. Smith; and
though he says that every man with sense enough
to go to mill, would refuse to acknowledge such a
sentiment, yet I know one of the most eminent of
our clergy who has done so, and who had more
than sense enough “to go to mill.”

Still I am gratified at the change of sentiment,
and at the change of ¢one still more so. There is,
nevertheless, a drawback to all this; for my worthy
friend, in carrying out some of his abstractions,
which are always doubtful in character and dan-
gerous in issue, has involved himself in an appa-
rent contradiction. He believes slavery to be an
evil in fact, and a great evil; he says that the
Southerners are groaning under it, and that it is
their affliction and sorrow; and yet contends that
circumstances can make that thing good which in
its commencement was evil. He deprecates the
African slave-trade as abominable, and the means

 

* This is an error: the pamphlet referred to, though often at-
tributed to Prof. E. D. Sims, who is a Methodist preacher, was
written by A. D. Sims, Esq., a lawyer in Darlington, S. C.
M. E. Church, South. 65

employed to secure slaves as vile and treacherous ;
but that circumstances have taken away all that
was offensive in its character, until slavery, as ex-
isting now, is RIGHT. If so, I contend, upon his
own showing, it cannot be a great evil.

There is also another drawback. With all his
strong expressions with respect to the great evil
of slavery, before he got through with the “ab-
straction,” he placed human beings on the same
ground as the lands of New England and Pennsyl-
vania, as goods and chattels. These things detract
from the warm and strong declarations of my friend
on this subject. Still I will give him credit for
being a conservative as far as he goes.

I shall not follow the prosecutor in all his re-
marks, for though I listened with much interest to
his able and powerful speech—a speech that did
credit to his head and heart—there was a great
deal that had nothing whatever to do with the
question; and if our case had had the small-pox,
two-thirds of his remarks would never have caught
it. They had no relation to the case at all, and
do not operate except to break down the fair issue
which we wish to make before this Conference. I
shall try to meet the case on its merits, and place
the question on its true basis.

The prosecutor first complained of our journal,
and strove hard to make the impression—and may
have succeeded, to some extent—that there was
66 Organization of the

informality in-that journal. There is none what-
ever, not a particle of it, and he failed so clearly
to make it out, that he dropped it suddenly.
There was no real trial here, and there is every
thing in the journal that ought to be recorded in
its pages. Let us look at it fairly. On the call-
ing of the name of Mr. Harding at the Conference
in 1844, his Presiding Elder stated that by mar-
riage he had become connected with slavery. Mr.
Harding assented to the statement made by the
Presiding Elder; whereupon the case was referred
toacommittee. They reported that the appellant
be required to manumit his slaves at specified ages,
and give a pledge to the Conference to that effect.
He refused to abide by their decision, or to give
the pledge required. He was “labored” with,
(as our friends, the Quakers, say,) during the
whole Conference. Finally, a committee was ap-
pointed to induce him to accede to the requisition
of his brethren, and they reported that after all
he had refused to comply.

Mr. Harding. Was that committee a commit-
tee to labor? They were appointed to inquire
whether there was any legal difficulty in the case.

Mr. Slicer. The case is as the representative
states it.

Mr. Collins. The great matter is this—Mr.
Harding refused to abide by the decision of the
Conference. He would not move a step on the
M. E. Church, South. 67

issue. The question then became, whether the
Baltimore Conference was to bow to Harding, or
he to the Conference—whether we were to give
up the ground always occupied by us on this deli-
cate subject, or whether he should yield to us—
whether he should be permitted to beard the Con-
ference, or we should bring him up to the mark,
and make the rule bear upon him. When we
found that all attempts at reasoning with him were
disregarded, and that all the means that brotherly
affection could suggest and employ were ineffect-
ual, we suspended him, as the only resource we
had in the premises. All this is stated in the
journal; clearly, fully, fairly, distinctly stated.
What else do you want? What more was neces-
sary? There were no witnesses examined on the
occasion, for we wanted none. Brother Harding
admitted the fact, which indeed was notorious.
He admitted it by his non-denial of it before the
committee, and by his response and pleadings in
the premises; and all that we had to do was, to
bring him to the bar of the Conference to answer
for that which he acknowledged when the Presid-
ing Elder made the statement of the fact. There -
was not a question raised for a moment as to
whether he was innocent or guilty of what the
Presiding Elder had charged him with. He pleaded
guilty to it. There were no witnesses, and there-
fore the journal states all that it could state: the
68 Organization of the

“ questions” were never asked, the “answers to
them” never received, and therefore no “entry”
or record made of them on the journal.

The prosecution next relied upon the testimony
of Brother Gere, whose recollections of the case
were different from those of any other member of
his delegation. If that brother were to state un-
deniably, positively, and distinctly, that he re-
membered the pledge in the words he states, then
of course the negative testimony could not be sus-
tained; for I am not of the opinion of the Irish-
man, who complained of being found guilty of the
charge of theft, on the testimony of one witness,
on the ground that he could bring a hundred per-
sons who could testify that they never had seen
him steal. If, therefore, Brother Gere does give
positive and distinct testimony to the fact he
states, 1 admit at once its weight and authority,
and I now call upon him to answer me a question :

“Are your impressions distinct and positive that
Harding said that he and his wife would consent
that these persons should go to a free State ?”

Dr. Smith. That is not the subject; but that
Brother Harding pledged himself, for his wife and
for himself, that he would send them to Africa if
they wished, or that they might go to a free State.

Mr. Collins. Very well, I put it in that form.

Mr. Gere. I will state, as nearly as I can, what
I said yesterday morning. I did not say that my
M. E. Church, South. 69

recollection was distinct, but that the impression on
my mind was as distinct and clear as if it had
been told me yesterday morning. But I said that
I might be mistaken, and I was aroused to this
from what Brother Griffith said, otherwise I had
no idea that any one would have doubted it.
Brother Morgan referred to the case of Brother
Hansberger, and said that he had pledged himself
as [had said Brother Harding had done. I think
that I may have identified them. I have been
trying to conform to my brethren, but I still say
that the impression remains, though I may have
confounded the two cases.

Mr. Collins. I will show you now, in confirma-
tion of Brother Morgan’s account, that Brother
Gere must be mistaken. If Brother Harding had
ever given the pledge which he says he did—
pledging himself and his wife—such was the dis-
position of the Baltimore Conference, that there
would have been no such action as that which
brings this business here. I know that he never
did. But let that pass.

Mr. Harding. I did pledge myself as Brother
Gere says.

Mr. Collins. Why, Mr. President, it is all we
asked for. How could the case have got here
if he had pledged himself to do the very thing we
asked him to do? We would have given him the
whole year. It is all J asked.
70 Organization of the

Mr. Harding. You never did ask it, sir. It
never was asked.

Mr. Collins. Why, sir, we should then have
acted very strangely, for that is all we asked in
the resolution. Hear it:

“Resolved, That Brother Harding be required to
execute, and cause to be recorded, a deed securing
the manumission of the slaves hereinafter men-
tioned, etc., etc., and that Brother Harding be re-
quired to give to this Conference a pledge that the
said manumission shall be effected during the en-
suing Conference-year.” .

I shall proceed now to reply to the material parts
of the argument for the prosecution in this matter.

First. That the laws of Maryland do not admit
of manumission. Now, sir, this is not according
. to the fact in the case. The opinion of Judge
Key has been read to the effect that slaves cannot
be manumitted in Maryland ; but the first law they
read directly contradicts the opinion. The law of
1831 specifies the course that shall be taken with
regard to manumitted slaves. It provides three
modes of disposing of them. First, they may go
to Africa; or second, to the non-slaveholding
States; and thirdly, if they fail to do so, the
sheriff is required, not to take them up and sell
them again into slavery, but to convey them,
against their will if need be, beyond the bounds
of the State. The slave once free in Maryland is
M. E. Church, South. 71

forever free. The question does not lie on that
ground. By the Laws of Virginia, if a manumitted
slave remains one year in the State after his manu-
mission, he can be reénslaved; but in Maryland,
when once free, he can never be reénslaved. That
is the law referred to by the prosecution, and it
contradicts Judge Key, and is directly against the
ground taken. The law of 1832 simply concurs
in this provision of the former law, and increases
the fine upon the sheriff, if he refuses or fails to
comply with the requisitions of the statute. But
all its enactments clearly and distinctly recognize
manumission. The law of 1843 is a strange and
singular law. Its fundamental feature is against
the law of God, for that makes man the head of
his wife, and this law takes man from the position
assigned to him by the Supreme Being. And I
am satisfied that this law will work such evil that,
as a matter of necessity, it will have to be re-
pealed. I hope, therefore, that you will not judge
us by this law. We cannot answer for the ter-
giversation of the Laws of Maryland, and cannot
conform to all their changes. As they have gone
so faras to pass a law deposing man from his
rightful place in the domestic economy—a place
assigned to him from the beginning of time by
positive Divine injunction—they may pass a law
requiring him to obey his wife. What may have
been the intention of the Legislature in passing
72 Organization of the

this law, I know not. They may have intended,
in a sinister way, to nail slavery faster than ever,
and to rivet its chains more firmly. They had
attempted to pass a law which outraged public
sentiment on this subject. It raised the indigna-
tion of the people to such a pitch, that they were
compelled to retract it, after getting it into the
Senate. Foiled in that, they may have intended
to do that by stealth which they could not accom-
plish openly, and, binding the fetters still more
strongly, render slavery more permanent, and man-
umission more difficult. But the eyes of the peo-
ple of Maryland will be opened to the iniquity
and oppression of this law also, and the Legisla-
ture will be driven to repeal it. Or the intention
may have been benevolent, as the law heretofore
provided that if a man married a wife with slaves,
they became his property by such marriage, and
could be seized by his creditors; hence this is en-
titled a law to regulate conjugal rights as they re-
gard property. I say it may be benevolent in its
design, and be intended to secure to the female
protection, if so unfortunate as to be married to
one whose extravagance or crime may reduce him
to insolvency, and she be turned out to penury
and want.

Nothing at all is said in this law about manu-
mission. It repeals no law. ‘There is no repeal-
ing clause in it; and it might be safely and well
M. E. Church, South. 73

argued whether such a law were worth one cent.
It does not destroy the power to manumit. In
one of its sections it provides, that if the husband
and wife unite, the slaves can be disposed of. Its
only operation in this particular is to render manu-
mission more difficult, by requiring the covpera-
tion of the wife. Nor does it increase the diffi-
culty much, if any. No pious and _ intelligent
woman, (such as Mrs. Harding doubtless is,) who
has a husband in whose judgment and discretion
she confides, will jeopard his standing—especially
if he be a Christian minister—for the considera-
tion of a few slaves. ay

A member called Mr. C. to order, on the ground
of making remarks prejudicial to the character, of
the ladies. Gy
- Dy. Smith hoped the speaker would not be [ip-
terrupted, but allowed to go on without restraint,
and say whatever he thought important to,,his
case. Besides, he (Dr. S.) had the right of raphy.

Mr. Collins. It is a fair argument. I da
impeach the ladies at all. I deny the allegation
that I made any remark that could be constaied
into any such meaning. I say that the ladigsjone
their husbands so tenderly, and with such 39ffeg-
tionate devotion to their interests and happiness,
that if the husband wished it, they woul¢,yighl
such a point at once, and not jeopardize his stand-

ing for the sake of a few negroes. What, Lmpagt
4
74 Organization of the

was, that the effort had not been made; that if
half the pains were taken in order to obtain her
consent, if such were necessary, to the manumis-
sion of these negroes, that were used in wooing
the lady, the application would have been success-
ful. I, therefore, always suspect the man to be
a slaveholder at heart who rests his defense on
such a plea. When God arrested man in Para-
dise, and questioned him concerning his transgres-
sion, he said, The woman had deceived him. I
always thought that a dastardly act on the part of
Adam. We are very easily tempted to do what
we want to do, and then rest the blame on others;
and my sex has kept up the dastardly conduct to
the present time. We lay our wrongs and evils
upon our wives, when they cannot be heard in
self-vindication.

Sir, I would not set up such a defense as this.
I would scorn to do it; and I know full well, I am
perfectly convinced in my judgment, that if the
appellant wanted to manumit these slaves, his wife
would not stand in the way one moment. He
need not to have brought that plea here. The
difficulty is with Mr. Harding himself, who is at
heart a slaveholder, and this plea is only put in
for effect. In my judgment, if he had desired it,
his wife would have consented to their manumis-
sion. After all that has been said about the Laws
of the State of Maryland making it difficult to
M. E. Church, South. 75

manumit slaves, it has been repeatedly done. Mr.
Cornelius Howard, one of the most respectable
citizens of that State, and brother of Colonel
Howard, who led so gallantly the Maryland line
at the battle of the Cowpens, and whose name
stands out in proud distinction before his country,
a citizen who understood law as well as any man,
left his slaves free by will, and that deed is on
record in the proper county court of Maryland.
And how did he do it? Why, because he wanted
to do it, and had, therefore, the power. The will
is the great matter. The wish is “father to the
thought.” This man had slaves; he liberated
every one of them, and had the deed of manumis-
sion recorded. And this during the last year, at
the close of 1845; and this law, on which the
prosecution lays so much stress as prohibiting
such manumission, was passed in February, 1843.
Brother Blake, one of the cases before the Annual
Conference, against whom action was taken on pre-
cisely similar grounds as in this case, came up last
Conference and told us he had manumitted his
boy, and had the deed recorded in Baltimore
County Court; and he did it last year. Now,
with these facts on record, how shall it be plead
here—how can it—that there is no power to man-
umit? Thereis such power. The facts that have
transpired are an incontestable proof that the thing
can be done; so that, as far as the law of Mary-
76 Organization of the

land is concerned, there is nothing that renders it
impossible. The Baltimore Conference, then, in
view of the law, acted rightly toward Mr. Hard-
ing. They did right; he could have manumitted
these slaves, and they suspended him because he
would not.

The second point urged by the prosecution is,
that if the doctrine respecting the Laws of Mary-
land be doubtful, and if it be plead that Harding
has the right of property in the slaves, yet the
rule of Discipline is in his favor. He could not
do it legally. Why not? The prosecution give
me no answer to that question. So far as the Dis-
cipline of the Church is concerned, on this point
we will take our stand. I say Mr. Harding did
violate the Discipline. The rule does positively
bear upon him, and the Baltimore Conference de-
serve thanks instead of the sneers that have been
directed against them, that they have had the
firmness, in the face of a slaveholding community,
to enforce the Discipline. If we have not got the
rule of Discipline on our side, we have a hard case
to make out. But that we have it ‘I will satisfy
you. Iwish the mind and the intelligence of the
Conference to be directed to this point, that the
Discipline of the M. E. Church contemplates the
relation of its members with slavery in a three-
fold point of view. First, as it regards private
members ; secondly, as it respects local preachers ;
M. E. Church, South. Ge

and thirdly, as it concerns traveling preachers. It
is essential to maintain this distinction in coming
to an opinion on this case.

First. As to private members. The only rule
for this class is found in the General Rules, and
only prohibits the buying and selling of men,
women, and children, with an intention to enslave
them. A man, by this rule, may inherit slaves,
or they may come to him by natural increase, and
he may will them to his posterity, and there is
nothing in this Discipline that can take hold of
him, this being the only law that reaches private
members. It is sufficiently latitudinarian.

Second. Official members. The rule on this
point takes a stronger tie, and is different in that
respect to the rule affecting private members :

“We declare that we are as much as ever con-
vinced 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 emancipa-
tion, and permit the liberated slave to enjoy free-
dom.”

Official members are required to emancipate.
The private member is not. The official member
must manumit, but still the rule comes down with
comparatively less strictness, applying only in such
States as will permit the slave to “enjoy his free-
dom.”
78 Organization of the

Third. Traveling preachers. Here the Disci-
pline is still more stringent :

“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 eman-
cipation of such slaves, conformably to the laws
of the State in which he lives.”

Here nothing is said about the liberated slave
being permitted to enjoy freedom. The simple
act of manumission is treated of, and made com-
pulsory on the traveling preacher. “If practica-
ble,” he is to manumit. There is no other con-
dition; the exception is narrowed down, and then
the law is binding, and compels him to manumit.
And it is very right and proper, in the nature of
‘the case, that the Discipline on this subject should
be more strict upon the traveling preacher than
upon the local preacher, for the same reason that
‘it is drawn more tightly in the case of the local
preacher than the private member. There is wis-
dom, great wisdom, in this regulation. Our private
members are actual residents and citizens of given
States. Necessity rules them, and therefore it
might not do to make the law so tight in their
case as in others. Our local ministers are resi-
dents of States; but, in the proper sense of the
term, our traveling preachers are citizens of the
world; not of Virginia, or Maryland, or South
M. E. Church, South. 79

Carolina; for the Bishop has power to take up a
brother from South Carolina, and send him into
Massachusetts. And this is especially the case
in the territory embraced by the Baltimore Con-
ference, which includes part of Pennsylvania.
And because we are birds of passage, and can be
removed at pleasure, by the authorities of the
Church, out of the way of the local difficulties in
the way of manumission, the law is, very properly,
made more binding upon us. And remember, we
have not brought a local preacher here, but a trav-
eling preacher, and we try him under the rule that
applies to traveling preachers.

The next point that the prosecution urges is,
that their construction of the Discipline was con-
firmed by a resolution of the General Conference,
in 1840. I deny it altogether in its application
to a traveling preacher; and I could not help re-
marking, that though my friend brought forward
the rule applying to traveling preachers, yet, after
reading, he very quietly dismissed it, and kept the
rule applying to a local preacher constantly before
our eyes. J am not sure, sir, that he did not
thereby mislead us a little. That I do not mis-
state him at all is plain, for he made a reference
to the action of the last General Conference on a
memorial from Westmoreland, respecting the ordi-
nation of some local preachers. What have we
to do with that? Ilas it any thing to do in the
80 Organization of the

premises? We have now to do with the Disci-
pline that operates upon traveling preachers, and
with that alone. The Baltimore Conference could
not ordain those brethren, and they came up here
to induce the General Conference to compel us to
do it. There the action was upon the case of
local preachers, and my friend brings up a stray
resolution on their case! But let him show me
where it says a word about traveling preachers.
Their memorial was on their own behalf, as local
preachers; and if they said one word about trav-
eling preachers, they exceeded their power alto-
gether. :

The action of the General Conference on that
application has no bearing whatever on the present
case, unless they had said that the same rule was
binding upon traveling preachers also, which they
were careful not to do, so that the prosecution has
altogether failed in making out their construction
of the Discipline. He gave us, to be sure, a very
strange definition of what was meant by legal
emancipation; it deserved the credit of original-
ity; it was this, that a slave must be permitted
to enjoy his freedom. Now, legal emancipation
simply means, emancipation according to law—
the law of the State—whether the man shall be
allowed to remain in the State or not. And you
cannot show me any action of the General Con-
ference by which a traveling preacher cannot ef-
M. E. Church, South. 81

fect a legal emancipation. How would this apply
in Mr. Harding’s case? Why, according to the
law of Maryland, he must emancipate with the
consent of his wife. Then he does it legally.
The Discipline, sir, is against Mr. Harding, or it
never was against any man in the world. It
meets him right in the face, and he cannot get
round it. The Baltimore Conference did right in
suspending him; and though that Conference has
been held up here to contempt and scorn, we are
not ashamed of ourselves; for we have shown,
with regard to the whole matter, that we have lain
our interests upon the altar of principle and old
Methodism, and from our present position we do
not mean to be driven by Mr. Harding, or any
other man.

The prosecutor has been pleased to refer to the
conscience of the appellant in this matter. He
had better let that alone for the present. This
conscience is a strange affair. Where was his
client’s conscience when he entered into this busi-
ness? Where his respect for the Discipline, to
which he had solemnly vowed to submit himself?
or for the oft-repeated wishes of the Baltimore
Conference? He knew well that the step he was
taking would meet with the disapprobation of al-
most every member on the floor of that Confer-
ence; and yet he had no smitings of conscience

then! Ihave heard of a highwayman in Italy,
4*
82 Organization of the

who could rob a man and cut his throat without
any compunction; but he happened to eat meat
one day in Lent, and his conscience smote him
tremendously. O yes; this conscience is at times
a very facile thing! A man’s interest will stretch
his conscience tremendously. I won’t press this
point any farther.

The prosecutor rejoiced as one who had found
great spoil; but really, I must dash his joy. I
am for the Baltimore Conference against the whole
world; and therefore, though my friend was very
much pleased with what he supposed he had found,
I must take some of his pleasure from him. He
referred with an air of great triumph, and called
the attention of Eastern and Northern men to
some few words found in the report of this case.
“The old ones having passed the age,” etc., were
to be retained. This is the clause my friend
chuckled over so. He thought he had caught us
tripping, and appealed to his Eastern brethren to
see if we carried water on both shoulders. But,
sir, we are straight; we stand erect and upright,
unhurt and unharmed; and here let me say, that
we are one kind of men—North, South, East and
West, and Middle States—all stand on the same
broad basis. He forgot to tell this General Con-
ference that those very words were afterward
stricken out. They never passed the Baltimore
Conference. But suppose they had not been taken
M. E. Church, South. 83

out of the report. My friend knows very well
that it is the case almost everywhere, that when
a slave arrives at a certain age, he cannot be man-
umitted without security be given by his owner
that he shall not come upon the parish. This is
the case in Maryland. In Virginia the law is still
stronger. They cannot be got rid of, because they
cannot take care of themselves. The prosecutor
did not state this. If our journal had stated the
case as he represented it, we would have been per-
fectly justified in the eye of the law. But we
struck it out because we would not commit our-
selves at all on the subject.

The fourth argument employed by the prosecu-
tor was, that the spirit of the Discipline, as well
as the letter, was in favor of Mr. Harding, and
against the Baltimore Conference. It is a very
hard matter to define what spirit is, and he did
not favor us with any definition on the subject.
He simply took it for granted that the Methodist
Discipline was conservative. I hold that it is op-
posed to slavery, and that there is nothing in the
Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church that
sanctions slavery. What we mean by conserva-
tism is this: A party in the South contend for
slavery as proper and right, and essential even to
the existence of the republic and social institutions,
and that it ought never to be abolished. A party
in the North say it is an evil and a sin, and ought
84 Organization of the

to be abolished at once without regard to circum-
stances. Now between these two is conservatism.
The views of the Discipline on the evil of slavery
are absolute and positive. It pronounces it an
evil, and a great evil. And in fact it asks the
question, “What shall be done for the extirpation
of the great evil of slavery?” and then specifies
measures by which its purpose shall be effected.
But it does not regard it as sin under all circum-
stances.

My friend referred very strangely and singu-
larly to the happy interference of Northern aboli-
tionism as destructive of colonization. I confess
I do not understand him, sir. Hear him: “Slavery
is an evil, a great evil”—it was severely felt as
such. And yet he hails the action of abolitionists,
because, in his judgment, it has resulted in riveting
the chains of slavery—this admitted evil—more
durably. How is this?

Dr. Smith interrupted for explanation. He
insisted that Mr. C. was in error, and wished to
correct him.

Mr. Collins. I don’t stand here as a gladiator,
merely to gain a victory over Dr. Smith. If I
am in error, put me right.

Dr. Smith. I stated awhile ago that I should
be able to put the brother right in every thing;
and if the brethren will let me take my notes, I
will try and put him right in the premises.
M. E. Church, South. 85

Mr. Collins. I was going on to say, sir, that I
do not come here to win any laurels from Dr. Smith,
even if I had the power to do it. I came here in
defense of the Baltimore Conference. If I have
committed an error, it is unintentional; but I am
satisfied I have committed no fundamental error
this morning. All I want is to meet the question
on Discipline, as set forth in the able argument of
my friend, and all the desire I have on the subject
is to put the matter in its right light, and then I
am sure this appeal will be dismissed. I would
just remark, in conclusion, here, that we were not
ignorant of the Laws of Maryland. The note of
Mr. Merrick, which was read here yesterday, was
before us, but as a Conference we were acting on
simple order. It was referred to a committee, and
is therefore to be considered as having had our
action upon it.

We come now, in the next place, to state the
grounds on which we rest the defense of the Bal-
timore Conference in this matter.

First. Because the Discipline of our Church
has been violated by Mr. Harding. We hold that
he violated the Discipline in refusing to manumit
his slaves, in a case where he could do it, and
would not. This is one ground. Ineed here but
refer to my former remarks to show that the law
will admit'of manumission. Such was the course
pursued, that he seemed to court martyrdom, and
86 Organization of the

in a rude manner denounced that venerable body
as ultra abolitionists. I would not have brought
in this irrelative matter had not such been brought
in yesterday.

Secondly. Because Mr. Harding entered into
this difficulty voluntarily. It was his own act,
under circumstances of great and high aggrava-
tion. There are some cases in which necessity can
be fairly plead, where the parties are residents in
slaveholding States—in such instances the parties
may claim something in mitigation. But for a
man who was once free from slavery, and knowing
all the consequences that would result from such
action, voluntarily to involve himself in it, makes
it a very different case. I hope the Conference
will bear this distinctly in mind. He was no
slaveholder when the Baltimore Conference re-
ceived him on trial. They ordained him a deacon
and elder; and well he knew that he could never
have gone into orders had he been a slaveholder.
And I hold it to be the highest breach of trust, for
a minister of Jesus Christ, after being put in pos-
session of all ministerial power, to forfeit his
solemn oath of allegiance, and do an act which he
well knows will be an insult to his brethren, and
a contravention of the Discipline he has vowed to
preserve. I say, sir, I hold it to be a high offense
and breach of trust for a minister of Jesus Christ
thus to act. Where was the compulsion? Why
M. E. Church, South. 87

did he, comparatively a young man, thus violate
the pledge solemnly given to his fathers in the
gospel? Why run counter to the will of the
whole Conference, and throw the apple of discord
into that body, and seek to foment disunion among
its members? There was no reason—no necessity
for it. He might have been removed the next
year to another station. It was, I repeat, a breach
of trust of no ordinary character thus to fly in the
face of the Church and his brethren. And this
he did voluntarily and of his own accord. Suir, I
hold that no Methodist preacher has a right to do
just as he pleases. Even in the choice of a wife
he is under obligations to make a prudent choice,
and take counsel of his aged brethren. No, sir,
not even in the delicate matter of marriage has a
Methodist preacher a right to do as he pleases.
The character and standing of the Conference are
in some measure in his keeping, and he cannot at
will shake off the obligation, and trifle with the
trust that he himself has solicited, and which has
been placed in his charge in perfect confidence and
good faith.

Thirdly. Because he did it with his eyes open.
He can plead no ignorance here. He knew the
law of the State of Maryland, which he has
pleaded in his defense here. And he also knew
what ought to have been with him of preéminent
importance, the law of the Baltimore Conference.
88 Organization of the

All this he knew, and that I may not appear to
overstate my points, I beg permission to have
read from our journal a case in point. It was that
of Brother Hansberger. [Action of the Balti-
more Conference in that case read, as recorded in
the journals, by the Secretary. It was a similar
case, in which the Conference had made a like
requisition, and the member had submitted. ]

Mr. Collins continued. The appellant had this
case before his eyes when he entered upon the
engagement and married these slaves. Such reso-
lutions, passed by the Baltimore Conference, ought
to have deterred him from taking this step. One
of them goes to say, that if any brother do
thus act in disregard of the wishes of the
Conference in this matter, he shall be deemed
guilty of contumacy. Yet, with this resolution
before him, exposing himself to the charge of con-
tumacy, he involved himself and the Conference
in this difficulty.

Fourthly. Because, by becoming a slaveholder,
he rendered himself unavailable to us as a travel-
ing preacher.

The Baltimore Conference is composed of slave-
holding and non-slaveholding territory, in nearly
equal proportions. As a slaveholder, in the non-
slaveholding portion of the Conference, they would
not hear him preach. He would have to be con-
fined entirely to the slaveholding section. And
M. E. Church, South. 89

if this course were sanctioned, there would be
increased difficulty entailed upon the appointing
power of the Church in keeping one set of men
perpetually in each section of the Conference.
Nor is this all. It would have a direct tendency
to locality, and would thus strike at the very root
of our itinerant system; and no man has a right
to involve himself so as to confine, necessarily, his
labors to any one portion of the work, thus vir-
tually giving up his relation as an itinerant minis-
ter, and rendering himself unavailable. We could
then have nothing to do with him, but to get rid
of him as easily as we could, and pray God to fill
his place with some one who will not bring this
discordance among us. I beg the Conference to
look well to this single point connected with
slavery. He would have been to us a semi-local
preacher. Ought this to be sustained? Are there
not tendencies enough already to locality in our
system without increasing them? And ought such
an obstruction as that in which Harding has in-
volved himself to be forced upon a Conference
which has always repudiated it? We want no
such restraints; and because we do not, we have
placed this brother in the situation he occupies.
Our fifth, and last reason, is this: Because of
the position the Baltimore Conference has ever
occupied on the subject of slavery. And I wish
to define this position, that it may be clearly and
90 Organization of the

correctly understood. The Baltimore Conference
never has sanctioned the connection of any of its
members with slavery. ‘It has been tried by mar-
riage contracts, but that plan failed. It has been
tried also by other means, but they also failed; and
never, remotely or directly, and in no sense, have
they affected our integrity. The Baltimore Con-
ference has maintained her independence at all
times, and means to maintain it. And in taking
this position she is fortified by the Discipline—call
it conservative or what you will. She is on the
old Methodist basis, where she was first put—on
the ground on which she was first planted.

We had a definition yesterday of conservatism,
and I thought it the strangest I ever heard in my life.
If the prosecutor be a conservative, convinced of
the great evil of slavery, why, I beg of him, will
he force this thing upon us when we do not want
it? We have taken no new ground on this subject.
We are just where we always were—standing as
a breakwater to pro-slavery in the South, and the
waves of abolitionism from the North. I know

hat this has been sneered at, and much sarcasm
has been spent upon it, but it is nevertheless true.
We have not been propelled to our present posi-
tion either by the North or the South. We are
just where the venerable and venerated Asbury
and our fathers were. Brother Smith has been
largely professing conservatism! But what sort
M. EF. Chausch, South. 91

of conservatism is it? He admits that slavery is
a great evil, and yet is favorable to perpetuating
it, and forcing it upon a body that always repu-
diated it. ’Tis a strange conservatism! We
know it not. It never had an existence in the
Baltimore Conference. We cannot comprehend
it, and we would not if we could. Iam not for
any violent measure on the subject of slavery. I
firmly believe that if this matter had been left
alone and untouched, such is the influence of Meth-
odism and other means, that, ere this day, the
States of Maryland and Virginia would have made
considerable advance in gradual emancipation. It
is by the preaching of the gospel—the diffusion
of the benevolent spirit of Christianity, that the
rigors of slavery have been abated; and by the
continuation of such means shall the broad, ex-
pansive principles of Christian liberty be promul-
gated until the spirit of freedom find a shrine in
every cabin, and a home in every heart. I love
the negro. My first recollections—those infantile
associations that perish not amid the rougher con-
flicts of life—are of a negro who nursed me. I
was raised among them, and I know how to love
them. But let such love be shown, not by violent
measures for their deliverance from bondage, but
by carrying, in the true spirit of Methodist itin-
erancy and conservatism, the gospel to their cabins
—by going to the poor African, and praying for

=
92 Organization of the

him and with hin—by visiting the poor and needy
among them, the widow and the fatherless, the
sick and in prison! Yes, sir, that is the man for me,
who will thus “show me his faith by his works.”

We had the vessel of colonization and gradual
emancipation, fair and beautiful, and in fine trim,
gliding swiftly and gracefully across the limpid
waters, bounding from wave to wave before the
propitious breeze. Joyously and gracefully she
speeds along her trackleds path; and the crested
wave, kissing transiently her graceful bow, falls
back into the tranquil sea—all, all is fair, and
bright, and prosperous! But see! the heavens
are darkening—the storm is howling—the sea
heaves beneath the sudden tempest, and the waves
thereof roar and toss themselves—the gale has
struck her! What then? Shall we desert her?
No, sir; the Baltimore Conference will not do so!
They will not forsake the ship because the gale
has struck her, and she bends beneath the storm!
They will not rush below in terror and fright, or
jump overboard with phrensied despair. Sir, they
know us not who think we are the men to quail
in the hour of danger. We will not strike our
flag. We will not combine with the enemies of
the African, either North or South. We will
work the ship, hoping and believing that, by the
blessing of God, we shall come off successfully at
last! Abolitionism shall never make us pro-
M. E. Church, South. 93

slavery. Why, sir, we saw the cloud to which
my friend refers, in its deepening, spreading dark-
ness—we heard the pealing thunder as it was
borne up to us on the wings of the tempest-wind,
and beheld the lurid glare of the lightning’s flash;
but we were not dismayed. The gallant ship—
our good old Methodism—has outridden many a
perilous storm, and will many another, and despite
these passing dangers we mean to voyage in the old
ship “o'er life’s tempestuous ocean,” and will never
leave her nor forsake her, for ours is the right kind
of conservatism. We acknowledge, as true con-
servatives, moral excellence and worth on both
sides. Some of the best men and women we have
known have been slaveholders, and we are well
aware that some of these are slaveholders of neces-
sity. It is a remarkable fact that the members of
the Baltimore Conference, who have sustained
this measure, were mostly raised in slaveholding
States.

The speaker then paid a just tribute to certain
members of the Baltimore Conference who had
manumitted their slaves for Christianity’s sake,
and maintained that instead of being held up to
reproach, that Conference was justly entitled to
the thanks of Methodism in all its connections.
He then proceeded to recapitulate the points which
he had endeavored to establish. He thought he
had proved that the journal of the Conference was
94 Organization of the

correct—that the laws of the State of Maryland
admit of manumission—that the Discipline of the
Church did bear upon Mr. Harding’s case—that
that Discipline had been violated by him—that he
was righteously liable to the consequences of that
violation—that he had acted in the matter volun-
tarily and contumaciously, and that he had ren-
dered himself unavailable, as a traveling preacher,
to his brethren of the Baltimore Conference.

And now, having shown the reasons why the
Baltimore Conference suspended Mr. Harding, he
(Mr. C.) asked, Would the General Conference
send him back again to them? He begged them
to consider well, and with great calmness, before
they did so. Did they wish to make another
slaveholding Conference? Admit one slaveholder,
and the Baltimore Conference has no longer the
independent position they could now irreproacha-
bly assume! Once break down the barrier, and
they must admit others! Would they thus hum-
ble their fathers in Christ, and thus trample on
old Methodism? He trusted they would not, but
would assist them still to occupy the ground they
had, by much sacrifice, and with much difficulty,
been able to take. If they did change their
ground, it was hard to say where they would stop.
Their young men would by marriage become slave-
holders, and the principles which the Baltimore
Conference so long had held would be sacrificed
M. E. Church, South. 95

entirely. The question was a momentous one, not
so much between Mr. Harding and the Baltimore
Conference, but between the Baltimore Conference
and all future candidates for the ministry in their
Conference. He was aware that appeals would
be made to their sympathies. In this the prose-
cution would have the advantage. But they must
also remember that the appellant by his conduct
had proved that he did not place much value upon
his relation to his fathers and brethren, and there-
fore on that score he could claim really nothing.
He did not wish to wound the feelings of the
Southern brethren. Among them were many
venerable for their talents, and piety, and useful-
ness in the Church of God; but while he would not
be the willing instrument of wounding their feelings,
he was compelled to say what he had said, that
he might put the act of the Conference he repre-
sented in its right and proper view before them.
He prayed the blessing of God upon his Southern
as well as his Northern brethren, and trusted they
should live and labor on in love and friendship,
and that time would mellow down all asperities on
the painful subject which was agitating the Con-
nection, so that they might dwell together as
one family on earth, and then each, from North
and South, and East and West, should enter
triumphantly into the heaven they were seek-
ing, where all minor distinctions would be swal-
96 Organization of the

lowed up and lost in the beatific contemplation of
Him who had washed them from sin in his own
blood, and made them kings and priests unto God
forever.

Mr. President, the ground of the Baltimore
Conference is unquestionably the true one. She
is truly conservative. She never has proclaimed
—never will—anywhere, or at any time, or under
any circumstances, that “slavery is a sin under
all circumstances;” while at the same time she
wishes to preserve the members of her body dis-
connected with slavery, that the influence of their
example may fell silently and surely against its
perpetuation. The head and front of our offending
—that for which we are arraigned at the bar of this
General Conference—is simply this: We wish to
keep slavery from our traveling ministry. This
is no new thing with us. The effort made now
is to effect a change in the position of the Balti-
more Annual Conference by making it a slavehold-
ing body. This, I trust, will not be done. We
cannot sacrifice our ground to accommodate Mr.
Harding, or any other man who may choose to
become a slaveholder. The issue of the case be-
fore us involves momentous consequences, affecting
the whole Church; and in full confidence in the
wisdom and integrity of the General Conference,
we submit it to their decision.

The President said that any of the Baltimore
M. E. Church, South. 97

Conference delegation were now at liberty to speak
on the subject, and

Mr. Slicer rose to address the Conferenee. He
said he had been in doubt whether any other of
the delegation besides the brother who had been
specially intrusted with the case, ought to address
them on this subject. He would, however, occupy
their attention briefly. The memorial of certain
local preachers had been frequently referred to.
The brethren memorialized the several Confer-
ences either to right them, or set them off. But
the people were not willing to be set off, and when
the General Conference sat in Philadelphia in
1832, the people south of the Rappahannock
River memorialized the Conference not to let the
Virginia people have them. And if the people
there desired the ministration of the preachers of
the Baltimore Conference, and not the Virginia
Conference, was it not likely that the friends north
of that river would have still stronger sentiments
on the subject? Something had been said about
“loaves and fishes.” Now the people referred to
were a clever, intelligent people, but their territory
was ‘by no means the most desirable portion under
the care of the Baltimore Conference.

The reverend gentleman then gave a geograph-
ical description of the country, and said that the
Baltimore Conference was in nowise disposed to

part with them, unless they (the people) wished it.
5
98 Organization of the

They did not intend that any number of local
preachers should separate them, but when a ma-
jority of the people wished it, it should be done.
The people there were an admirable people, and a
conservative people, too, having been supplied
with antislavery preachers—so true was it that
the people received their complexion from the
ministry. At Whitemarsh, where the Roman
Catholic priests own slaves almost without num-
ber, and sell them ad hditum, and pay the money
into the “Lord’s treasury,” in that whole country
slavery exists under the worst forms. The rev-
erend gentleman gave a farther analysis of the
country and the state of feeling in the various
districts, illustrating his position, that the charac-
ter of the people depended on the character of the
ministry, and showed that the progress of eman-
cipation had been from North to South.

He then proceeded to notice the position of the
Baltimore Conference to the appellant before them.
He (the appellant) was well aware that his be-
coming a slaveholder would be a disqualification
for his usefulness among the people. He (Mr.
Slicer) had known Mr. Harding from his youth
up, had preached in his father’s house, and was
willing to make any sacrifice but of principle to
meet his case, and to bring him into compliance
with the wishes of the Conference. He must say,
however, that all the labor and anxiety of a com-
M. EL. Church, South. 99

mittee appointed for that purpose was met by the
appellant, not only with no sympathy, but with
utter contempt and disregard. If, however, he
thought it more important to maintain his position
than yield to the wishes of his brethren, the elec-
tion was with him. The Conference could do
without him quite as well as he could do without
the Conference. If he were sent back twenty
times, the Baltimore Conference would not change
its ground; and he (Mr. 8.) looked confidently,
as he prayed earnestly, for the day when this
dark spot should be wiped away from this free
country.

Mr. Griffith had no intention to make a speech
on the subject, but he wished to call the attention
of the Conference to a few facts connected with
the matter under their notice. It had been said
that the Baltimore Conference occupied a territory
nearly equally divided between slaveholding and
non-slaveholding States, and embracing part of
Virginia; yet the Baltimore Conference had al-
ways contrived to avoid any agitation of the ques-
tion among the people of Virginia, and had never
violated any of the laws of that State; and from
this he thought a lesson might be learned. Yes-
terday, the brother, in advocating the cause of
the appellant, had said, “only slavery where we
must,” as if he intended to make the impression
that this young man was of necessity connected
100 Organization of the

with slavery—tied hand and foot. Now this was
far from being the fact—there was not a word of
truth in it. He could disentangle himself in an
hour if he liked, the Laws of Maryland notwith-
standing. In point of fact, the law against man-
umission is inoperative. It would be indeed
strange if a freeman had not the right to make
that disposal of his property which he might
choose to make. Maryland never had said that a
slave might be taken up and sold—she never had
declared that slaves were property; and then in
the same breath, that men should not do what they
thought fit with their own property, and that she
assumed the right to do that which she forbade
the owner doing. No, sir, they know that a man
has a right to set his slaves free—they know the
illegality and imperfection of any act to the con-
trary—and yet they try to control it, and ward
off the consequences of this kind of he
hardly knew how to designate such kind of legis-
lation.

One word farther. That young brother was
perfectly at liberty to emancipate his slaves at
any time he liked. No man in the State of Ma-
ryland doubted his right. Slaves were set free all
over the State. And if the Virginia Conference
had been as careful to preserve the integrity of
her own original position as the Baltimore Con-
ference, she would now have been as free from the

 

 
M. E. Church, South. 101

great evil as the Baltimore Conference was. And
why not? The Baltimore Conference keeps ter-
ritory side by side with the Virginia Conference.
Nothing but the Rappahannock River divides
them. And the Baltimore Conference had occu-
pied this territory with preachers free from
slavery; and you will, on examining the statistics,
find that we have had, at least, equal success with
our Virginia brethren.

At the conclusion of Mr. Griffith’s remarks, the
President inquired whether the delegation of the
Baltimore Conference had concluded, when Dr.
Smith said he hoped not, for they had not yet at-
tempted to show that the appellant was the owner
of a single slave.

Mr. Collins. This is not the place. He has
already acknowledged that he was so involved in
slaveholding that he could not get rid of it.

Mr. Harding. I do not admit it—I deny it.

Mr. Collins. What did the Presiding Elder and
the record on the journal say? Why, that Mr.
Harding has “come into the possession of several
slaves.”

There were a variety of ways in which a man
could become connected with slavery—one of
which was by a marriage contract, of all other
courses the most dishonorable and hateful. This
shifting it upon the woman was adding meanness
to injury, and was nothing but a mere special plea
102 Organization of the

—a disingenuous and disreputable quibble. He
(the appellant) gets the benefit, and has the con-
trol of the property, and is therefore in fact a
slaveholder. Let them not hang their defense. on
such a mere technicality.

Mr. Sargent. The whole action proceeded on
the admitted fact that he was a slaveholder; and
the fact was never denied, and this plea is entirely
an after-thought.

Mr. Collins said that an honorable man would
hate to get off by any such quibble. The man
never denied that he was a slaveholder. And this
was also in direct opposition to the plea set up
yesterday, namely, that he offered to send these
slaves to Liberia or any free State. IPfhe had no
slaves, either jointly or otherwise, why make that
plea, and try to get off by saying that he had
consented to remove them? And why pledge his
consent if he had no ownership? Let them meet
the case honestly and fairly. They were not ar-
guing the matter before a set of quibbling lawyers.
This was a mere ruse. But it wouldnotdo. The
very law they had appealed to was against them.
By Section 2, it made him joint owner with his
wife to all intents and purposes, and the appellant
knew it. Very sorry was he (Mr. C.) that the
prosecutor should think it necessary to resort to
such a quibble.

After Mr. Collins closed his speech, some con-
M. E. Church, South. 103

versation arose respecting the time at which the
rejoinder should be heard, but the Conference ad-
journed without coming to any conclusion.

On the following day, Friday, May 10, by con-
sent of the appellant’s advocate, Mr. Collins again
took the floor. He acknowledged the courtesy
and Christian temper manifested by Dr. Smith.
He wished to touch one or two points before he
was ruled out by the discipline regulating the
Conference. A rumor prevailed, he had learned,
among the members of the Conference, that there
were at present three or four slaveholders in
the Baltimore Conference. He (Mr. C.) denied,
distinctly and fully, that such was the case—they
had not, nor would they have, a slaveholder among
them. He then glanced at the various cases that
had come before them, as an Annual Conference,
and showed that in every case they had treated
them exactly as they had dealt with Mr. Harding.

Messrs. Davis, Griffith, and Slicer emphatically
denied the truth of such a rumor, and indorsed all
Mr. C. had said upon the subject.

Mr. McMahon rose to order. He objected to
this answering all the gossip they might hear out
of door. If they were all to do so, he knew not
where it might stop.

Bishop Waugh thought, as it was connected in
some degree with the appeal before the Conference,
in which the Conference had allowed some latitude
104 Organization of the

to both sides, it was not necessary to interrupt the
speaker. There was hardly any departure yet
that could call for interference.

Mr. Collins resumed. He wished also to cor-
rect another wrong impression. It was partially
believed that the Baltimore Conference, in sus-
pending Mr. Harding, had acted in ignorance of
the law of 1843. He begged to correct this mis-
conception. They had before them the opinion
of Justice Merrick with regard to this very law.
But he would say boldly, that if the law had been
tenfold what itis, if it had actually, outright and
downright, without any possibility of avoiding it,
taken these slaves from Harding’s control, the
Conference would still have acted just as they
did; because they did not intend to change their
ground, and could not pretend to alter their views
with every shifting of the Legislature. Besides,
the Legislature did not compel Mr. Harding to
become a slaveholder.

Since the discussion, he had spoken with several
preachers who were over here from the Baltimore
Conference, and they all agreed that Mr. Harding
never gave the pledge he said he did; so he (Mr.
C.) thought that point was disposed of. As to
the question of ownership, it was plainly laid
down in the laws of the State that the husband
had joint ownership. The law was designed sim-
ply to give the wife such control over her property
M. E. Church, South. 105

that it should not be taken from her for any debts
or contracts of her husband; and if the lady is a
slaveholder, the husband is one too. The gentle-
man went through the different sections of the
law with great ability, dissecting and analyzing
them with much skill and minuteness, and then
touched upon the Discipline of the Church, to
show that it was more positive in requiring a tray-
eling preacher to manumit his slaves than it was
with local preachers and other officers of the
Church. He then proceeded to show that public
opinion at Baltimore, and throughout most of the
territory under the charge of that Conference, was
in their favor; and that there was no practical
difficulty in the way of manumitting slaves in
Maryland, for it was constantly done, and four-
fifths of the colored people in Baltimore were free.
And now, he inquired, were the Baltimore Con-
ference to be made to lick the dust at the feet of
the appellant, or were they to be supported in
their action, as they ought to be? Would the
General Conference say to the Baltimore Confer-
ence, after all her prayers, and efforts, and sacri-
fices, and reproach, that she was to take into her
bosom a slaveholding minister? If so, the conse-
quences would be calamitous in the extreme. The
issue was fairly before them, and, whatever were
the consequences, it must be fairly met.

He then made a most earnest and affectionate
5*
106 Organization of the

appeal to his Southern brethren, calling upon them,
by their avowal of the evil of slavery, not to force
the “evil” upon a Conference that had hitherto
kept clear of it; and addressing the other two
sections of the Church, he implored them by their
love of order, and their regard for discipline, to
sustain the Baltimore Conference in this appeal.
Dr. Smith then rose to reply. He said, Sir, I
wish most particularly to disclaim the obligations
the speakers have felt themselves free to express
for the indulgence extended them. It was no tax
to my feelings to entertain the request to make
an explanation this morning, and no risk to my
cause to grant it. Although the “explanation”
amounted to a second speech on the merits of the
case, and occupied some two hours or more, yet I
may safely commit the whole of it to our faithful
reporter. If I understand myself, few things would.
have afforded me more pleasure than for the coun-
sel, Mr. Collins, both on his own account and the
reputation of his Conference, to have recovered
his position before this body and the whole Church.
No one, I am sure, will doubt his ability. He
has exhausted his resources both of argument
and eloquence. He has been indulged, both by
myself and the Conference, in every advantage he
asked. Still, sir, I feel satisfied, from the mani-
fest weakness of his positions, that if he will suffer
the reporter to do him justice, he will find reason
M. E. Church, South. 107

to be ashamed of his cause. From various indi-
cations on this floor, there may be good reason to
fear that the cause of the appellant finds but little
sympathy with many. The American Methodist
Church, however, may give a different verdict.
The counsel may find as much cause ultimately
to- cower under this decision as he now finds to
triumph under the strange sympathy which his
offensive doctrines have met with in this body.
Before I enter upon the true issues before the
Conference, I must notice several points which
the counsel and those who have come to his aid
have dwelt upon as important to their cause. I
shall treat them as preliminary to this discussion.

1. The speaker, Brother Collins, has compli-
mented me—in very flattering terms to be sure—on
what he considers my conversion from pro-slavery
to antislavery principles. Sir, this was intended
for effect. The impression may be made that I
did not give my actual opinions on the subject of
slavery. This is a short way of avoiding my
argument. Why did not the speaker invalidate
my position, by showing that slavery in its cir-
cumstances is necessarily sinful, and, therefore,
the course of the Baltimore Annual Conference
should be sustained? Why, sir? Because there
was a much sounder discretion in declining to
meet my arguments, and cover his retreat by the
intimation that I did not myself believe the doc-
108 Organization of the

trines on which the vindication of Mr. Harding
rests. But, sir, I cannot yield this advantage.
My arguments, showing that slavery is not neces-
sarily sinful, are unanswered—indeed, untouched.
And until this be done, the action of the Balti-
more Conference is wholly indefensible. Jf moral
turpitude, more or less, does not necessarily attath
to slavery, the decision of this court of ministers,
depriving a member of their body of holy orders,
simply because of his union by marriage with a
lady who held property in slaves, is an outrage
upon the feelings of the appellant, an indignity to
a very large portion of the Church, and a reflec-
tion on the judgment of the Baltimore Conference.
Sir, I should appreciate much more highly the po-
sition of the speaker had he met my argument
fairly. But I am converted, it is said! When?
Where? or at what altar? I honestly confess I
know nothing about it. It is a change I never
felt. I never, on any former occasion, attempted
an extended expression of opinion before this
body on the subject of slavery. On the subject
of abolition I remember to have made a remark
on the floor of the General Conference of 1832.
I will quote it here: “Abolition is now in its egg
state—now you can put your foot upon it, and
crush it; but if, instead of this, you breathe upon
it the warm breath of your approbation, it shall
hatch a scorpion that shall sting you to the heart.”
M. E. Church, South. 109

And now, sir, I ask whether my prediction is in
a way to be verified or not? Twelve years only
have passed away, and a purely abolition move-
ment on the part of the Baltimore Annual Con-
ference finds favorin this body. Yes, sir, such
are the indications that it may be well if we be
not on the eve of division. Your decision in this
case may be the knell of our long-cherished union.

I affirmed, in my opening speech, that the South
was not pro-slavery, but antislavery. The Geor-
gia and South Carolina Conference delegation,
with every other member from the South on this
floor, united in a most hearty response to the ap-
peal I made to them on this point. This, too, is
seized upon, and these Conferences are also con-
gratulated upon their conversion. This is based
chiefly I suppose upon the resolutions adopted by
these Conferences in 1831, declaring that slavery
“is not a moral evil.” But, sir, this argues no
change. They still adhere to their position in the
sense—and a good one, too—in which they used
the phrase “moral evil.” The popular sense of
their resolutions, as understood everywhere, was
simply this, that slavery was not necessarily sinful.
They still believe so. Sir, no other meaning was
ever attached to “moral evil,” as a popular expres-
sion, until the editor of the Christian Advocate
and Journal thought proper to call up a meaning
unknown to the popular mind. To raise a plat-
110 Organization of the

form on which the abolitionists of the North might
stand, without identifying themselves with O.
Scott, in his extreme measures of reforming the
government of the Church, he called up the dis-
tinction between “moral evil” and sin. Thus he
rallied the scattered forces of the North, dubbing
Scott & Co. as “radico-abolitionists,” and the Simon
Pures as “abolitionists” merely. How far this
consolidation of Northern forces was done with a
view to consequences which now threaten the
Church with division, I cannot say.

No, sir, we are not converted. We stand on
the same ground we have occupied from the found-
ation of the Church—the grand conservative
ground laid by our fathers in the Book of Disci-
pline. Slavery, as it exists among us, is “a great
evil;” and I will add, to none so great an “evil”
as to the master. “It is not, however, necessa-
rily asin.” I will add, it is only a sin to those
individuals who abuse the institution. No, sir,
we have not changed our ground. We have no
hecatomb of slaughtered principles to offer upon
the altar of abolition devotions. And if they
would bind our principles, we would point them to
the prophetic “he-goat” in Daniel’s vision, as more
symbolical of the desolating effect of their fanati-
cal measures, and say to them, Take him for the
sacrifice!

2. I made a strong point of the informality of
M. E. Church, South. 111

the Baltimore Conference journals, claiming on
this ground that the case be at least returned for
a new trial. The jealous. concern of the counsel
for the reputation of his Conference is peculiarly
awaked at the indignity of such an imputation.
Well, let us see. The Discipline of our Church
requires that in the trial of a minister, “regular
minutes of the trial shall be kept, including all the
questions proposed to the witnesses, with their
answers.” According to the statement of the
counsel, there was no witness in the case but
Harding himself. Now, sir, according to the dis-
cussion the other day, and the argument of counsel,
the merit of this case turns chiefly upon this point
—Did Mr. Harding pledge himself and his wife,
before the Conference, to send these slaves to
Africa or to a free State, of they would consent to
go? One of the delegation distinctly remembers
that he did so pledge himself and his wife: the
others do not remember to have heard the pledge.
All, however, agree that the witness made many
statements before the Conference; some of these
you have heard plead against him by the counsel.
Why, sir—seeing he was most unjustly made to
witness against himself—why, I ask, do not the
journals record his testimony, that he may now
have the benefit of it? Are not the journals de-
fective in this respect? And as a proof of the
bearing of this fact upon the issue, I appeal to
112 Organization of the

Brother Tippett, a member of the delegation, had
Harding been thus understood, if it is likely he
would have been suspended. Brother Tippett, I
see, is silent, sir. I understand his silence; he
knows it to be so.

Mr. Tippett—from his seat—I deem it unnec-
essary to answer now, (the time for receiving tes-
timony having passed.)

It is not important you should, sir. It might
involve you in serious responsibilities. Your si-
lence is sufficient. Now, sir, can any thing be
more plain than this, that these journals are defec-
tive, and that in a point most material to the issue
before us? Is it not the least we can do, in jus-
tice to the appellant, to send him back for a new
trial? But, sir, the journals record material facts,
which show the illegality and injustice of the
whole proceeding so clearly, that he is entitled to
be wholly released from the suspension. This I
will show in the proper place.

8. The next point on which I should make some
remarks is the reply of the General Conference
of 1840 to the memorial from Westmoreland,
Virginia. The origin of this memorial I have ex-
plained. I read the resolution adopted by the
Conference. The counsel finds himself much
embarrassed by this resolution, and contents him-
self with a flat denial that it admits of any appli-
cation to the case of the appellant. He affirms
M. E. Church, South. 113

that it applied exclusively to local preachers.
That it originated in the case of local preachers is
admitted. But the report of the committee is an
elaborate and most conclusive argument in support
of a principle which applies to all preachers. The
argument is not as to the meaning of Discipline
in relation to docal preachers merely, as he sup-
poses. The report concludes with a resolution,
which I have before read, and from which I will
quote one clause: “The ownership of slave prop-
erty in States or Territories where the laws do
not admit of emancipation, and permit the liber-
ated slave to enjoy freedom, constitutes no legal
barrier to the election or ordination of ministers
to the various grades of office known in the minis-
try of the Methodist Episcopal Church.” “Va-
rious grades of office.” Can language be more ex-
plicit? On what authority, therefore, can it be
pleaded that this applies to local preachers only?
That constitutes but one of the grades of office.
Sir, the assertion is a gross absurdity. I main-
tain, therefore, that the meaning of Discipline, by
this decision of the General Conference of 1840,
is settled in Mr. Harding’s favor. Language can-
not more clearly warrant a conclusion. And for
this General Conference to sustain the Baltimore
Conference in Harding’s case, is to do it in the
teeth of the Discipline as interpreted by them-
selves in 1840. It is to add to the afflictions of
114 Organization of the

the outraged brethren of Westmoreland, who
are the more grievously wronged in this, that to
the present time, the Balimore Conference have
continued to deny them their rights. Surely, sir,
this Conference should be held to a rigid accounta-
bility for this act of injustice to the local brethren
of Westmoreland, and of contumacy to the Gen-
eral Conference. But, instead of this, will you em-
bolden them in a systematic course of wrong-doing,
by refusing to sustain the appeal? I hope not.
In this connection I propose to notice several
particulars of a kindred character, introduced by
the counsel. It is affirmed that Mr. Harding’s
relation to slavery rendered him “unavailable” as
a Methodist preacher. On this ground it is ar-
gued, that it was expedient to “suspend him,” be-
cause the Conference is authorized (and accustomed
so to do) to locate men who are unavailable. That
is, sir—to throw the language into a more logical
form—because the Conference has an authority,
which they are accustomed to exercise, to locate
one who is unavailable as a traveling preacher,
(which, be it observed, leaves him in possession of
his ministerial orders,) therefore it was both legal
and expedient to suspend the appellant, and thus
deprive him of his ministerial orders! Fine logic
this! But, sir, on what ground was Mr. Harding
unavailable? Why, because a part of the Con-
ference appointments are within a non-slaveholding
M. E. Church, South. 115

State. Well, sir, are all the members of this body
considered “unavailable” whom it would not be
prudent to send to any part of the work? How
absurd! This Conference abounds with appoint-
ments to which the appellant could be sent with
the greatest propriety. The plea is a mere pre-
text. The counsel affirmed that “slavery had
ceased ere this in Maryland if it had been let
alone.” True, sir. Why, then, will not the Bal-
timore Conference let it alone? Do they let it
alone by a systematic plan of proscription? No,
sir, no.

I charged the Baltimore Conference with great
and manifest inconsistency in suspending Mr.
Harding, because he would not manumit the slaves
of his wife, when at the same time they required
him to retain a part of the servants in perpetual
slavery. This, I said, was an abandonment of
principle; and I now add that it shows that Mr.
Harding was seized as a victim, whose sacrifice
was the only way of reaching other and more in-
fluential members of the Conference. The counsel
triumphed greatly in the assurance he gave you,
that this feature of the report of the committee
in Harding’s case “was not adopted by Confer-
ence, but was struck out.” But, sir, I cannot let
the Conference escape in this way. I will hold
them to their responsibility by the firm grasp of
documentary truth. The vote of the Conference
116 Organization of the

on the report of the committee in Harding’s case,
did not strike out the clause leaving him in posses-
sion of certain slaves, (specified by name,) but
only struck out the clause assigning the reason for
requiring him to keep them in slavery. Such is
the fact, sir, according to the document, and the
shame of the transaction will attach to the Balti-
more Conference until they reform their ways.
But the counsel is particularly liberal to us on this
point, and equally fatal to his cause. He is free
to tell us a part of his argument, what this reason
was, namely, that the laws of the State did not
admit of emancipatiow after a certain age. This
he says to vindicate his Conference from the charge
I urged, of inconsistency in holding the appellant
to so pious an accountability to free himself, at
the peril of his membership, from slavery, and at
the same time require him to hold certain of them
in perpetual bondage. Really, sir, it seems that
the same evil genius which unquestionably pre-
sided over the deliberations of this body of grave
divines, still holds uncontrolled dominion over the
mind of the counsel. For, let me remind you, in
a word, of the late law of Maryland, of 1843,
which I read the other day. In this it is specific-
ally provided that the old law, to which the coun-
sel refers, be and is hereby rescinded, and here-
after all, without respect to age, shall be eligible
to emancipation on the same conditions.
M. E. Church, South. 117

4, But, sir, the counsel sought to involve me in
absurdity. I argued that slavery was not neces-
sarily a sin, and that its circumstances are such
that it is right to tolerate it, although it be con-
nected with many evils. Now, if this position
involves an absurdity, the converse of it, I sup-
pose, must be true. That is, it is wrong to toler-
ate slavery (being connected with so many evils)
because it is sinful under all circumstances. And
whatever may be the speculative opinion of mem-
bers of the Baltimore Conference on this point, I
can see no reasonable ground on which they can
stand respected in their own eyes for the decision
in Harding’s case but this, that his relation to slavery
was sinful. Observe, sir, he was not located. This
would have left him in possession of orders. He
was not reproved merely. No, sir, he was suspended
—that is, (in view of the declaration that he could
not make the required pledge,) expelled the minis-
try—deposed from orders. And for what, sir? For
no heterodoxy in doctrine, nor viciousness of life—
that is, for no sin. Will they say this? Unless
they do, i follows that they looked upon his relation
to slavery as constituting him a sinner. And on what
other hypothesis can we account for the paternity of
a series of most offensive remarks which have grated
so harshly upon our ears, especially from Messrs.
Collins and Griffith? If Mr. Harding’s connec-
tion with slavery (just such a connection as is
118 Organization of the

held by Southern men generally) be not in a high
degree sinful, many remarks from these brethren
are without any apology that I can conceive of.
Why, sir, in the select phraseology of these speak-
ers, slavery is always “a dark subject!” The
appellant is charged with having involved himself
in al the difficulties that embarrass and afflict
him, “by marrying the woman he did”—and why?
Because she had slaves. And, sir, for this crime
he is personally charged on this floor by word, ac-
companied with a most emphatic gesticulation,
with having violated his plighted faith to the Con-
ference, and discarding “the godly admonitions of
his brethren.” Nay, he was asked where was his
“conscience” when he formed this matrimonial
connection? Yes, sir, so full of turpitude is the
crime of marrying a lady with this property, that
it must be hunted down, even at the expense of
Mrs. Harding’s feelings. It is affirmed, in allu-
sion to her, that “no pious and intelligent woman”
would jeopardize the standing (in the Baltimore
Conference) “of a husband in whose judgment
and discretion she confides, for the consideration
of a few slaves.” I really had thought that if the
opinions of the speaker did not, that his gallantry,
in view of these galleries, would save him from so
far outraging the feelings of alady. (Mr. Collins
explained, and disclaimed all intention to impugn the
piety or intelligence of Mrs. Harding— he did not
M. E. Church, South. 119

doubt either.) I believe you, sir; and it was my
purpose to offer, in your behalf, the best apology
I could for the freedom of expression you em-
ployed in this delicate connection. Yes, sir, there
is no doubt that it was the appellant who was to
suffer by this reference to his lady. If the slaves
were not manumitted, we were to understand it
to be wholly his fault. This is the gist of the
matter. But, sir, I am not right sure, after all,
that he should be held to accountability in this way,
for the disposition which his lady would make of
property made hers—to be held in her own right
—by a special law of the State. Indeed, I am
not certain, if what I have learned of the counsel
be true, but that his own success in wooing the
consent of the ladies has long since satisfied him
of the practical truth contained in the couplet :

If she will, she will, you may depend on’t;
If she won’t, she won’t, so there’s an end on’t.

There is still another remark by which the
speakers betray their affinities. ‘More than one
has invoked this body not to “drive them to take
rank witha slaveholding Conference!” Take rank
with a slaveholding Conference!! My dear sir, who
are you, and what is your Conference, that you
should deprecate a footing with your brethren of
other Conferences? What elevation is this you
have reached, that you must needs stoop to be on
120 Organization of the

a footing with Virginia, and the Conferences south
of you? You “take rank” with Virginia! Sir,
I was not an indifferent observer of the kindred
emotions which this pure abolition appeal awaked ,
in certain quarters of this house. And however
agreeable the response elicited by these remarks
may be to the cherished affinities of the speakers,
they may know that they aroused feelings of the
deepest regret and mortification in other quarters.
Sir, they cut harshly across the sensibilities of
many a heart here, and must continue to jar in
harsh discord amid the sweetest music of our long-
cherished relations. It was not without cause, sir,
that the counsel closed his remarks by asking for-
giveness. True, we have much cause to complain.
Yet I will venture to pledge him the forgiveness
of every Southern man on this floor. I will cher-
ish the hope that stress of circumstances, in de-
fending a hopeless cause, has betrayed him to the
use of so many offensive remarks. But you (ad-
dressing Mr. C.) must allow me to remind you,
and those whose views you represent, that you
are no “conservatives.” You wisely choose a
more expressive figure when you represent your
body as the “breakwater” of the Conferences.
And verily the “ breakwater” ye are! for in your
branch of the common stream it seems has accu-
mulated the drift-wood and sawyers, so to speak,
which have floated upon the bosom of Methodism,
M. E. Church, South. 121

from the upper and nether sources of abolition,
until the dam of error has stretched itself across
your tide, and backed up your waters, until they
have drowned, instead of fertilized, your lands.

5. I proceed to notice the remarks of Brother
Slicer. As he did not design to enter into the
merits of the subject, I felt indifferent. I was,
however, soon roused by the announcement that
he would disclose a transaction disreputable to
the Virginia Conference. (He replied, Not so—I
said discreditable.) Well, “discreditable.” (No—
I said a transaction not so creditable to Virginia.)
Well, “not so creditable to Virginia,” in the West-
moreland case. Sir, the announcement, I say,
aroused me. I listened! heard the explosion—
watched the slow progress of the spent ball—the
sluggish missile fell far below its mark! He says
he is not such a conservative asIam. Right glad
am I of it. I may safely turn him over to our
faithful reporter. He will do him justice, I have
no doubt.

6. In concluding these preliminary remarks, I
will notice one statement of Brother Griffith. He
reminds us that a large part of the territory of the
Baltimore Conference is in Virginia, west of the
mountains. But few slaves, comparatively, are in
this section of the State. This he attributes to
the steady opposition of his Conference to slavery.
This might be argued, sir, if they had found in

6
122 Organization of the

that section of the work a large slave population
which had been gradually diminishing. But the
reverse of this is precisely true. They found
originally but few slaves, and the number of these
has increased greatly since that time. If Brother
Griffith had not been indebted to his imagination
for this important fact, I might give him the credit
of a good argument—bating always, however, his
earnest deprecation of the dishonor which he sup-
poses will attach to his being “driven to take
rank” with brethren at least jis equals !

Having disposed of these several points *which
appeared to me as preliminary merely, I now ask
your indulgence, sir, for a short time, while I set
before you the merits of this case as I find it in
the journals of the Baltimore Conference.

To present it more clearly, I will read the record
from the journal:

“Whereas, F. A. Harding, a member of the
Baltimore Annual Conference, by his late marriage
with Miss Swan, of St. Mary’s county, Md., has
come in possession of several slaves, viz., one
named Harry, aged 52; one woman, named Maria,
aged 56; one man, named John, aged 22; a girl,
aged 13, named Hannah; and a child, named Mar-
garet, aged 2 years; and whereas, the Baltimore
Conference, according to its well-known usage, CANNOT,
and WILL NOT, tolerate slavery in any of its members ;
therefore,
M. E. Church, South. 123

“Resolved, That Brother I’. A. Harding is hereby
required to execute, and cause to be recorded, a
deed securing the manumission of the slaves here-
inafter mentioned: the man named John, at the
age of 28 years; the two female children, at the
age of 23; the issue of the females, if any, to be
free at the same time with their mothers. And
that Brother Harding be farther required to give
to this Conference, during its present session, a
PLEDGE that the said manumission shall be effected
during the present Conference-year.”

This is the report as adopted by the Conference.
It should be noted that it does provide for the
manumission of only a part of the slaves. The
original report of the committee contained a clause
assigning the reason simply for not requiring the
manumission of all. This clause was struck out
by a vote of the Conference.

The final decision in this case, after adopting the
above report, was, on motion of Messrs. Collins
and Emory, in the following language: “Resolved,
That Brother Harding be suspended until the next
Annual Conference, or until he assures the Episco-
pacy that he has taken the necessary steps to se-
cure the freedom of his slaves.”

The informality of this whole proceeding must be
obvious to every one on the reading of the record.
I will throw it into something like a legal form, such
as it should have assumed before the Conference.
124 Organization of the

1. Tue invictment. F. A. Harding is charged
with having violated the well-known usage and de-
termined purpose of the Baltimore Annual Confer-
ence, not to tolerate slavery in any of its mem-
bers. .

2. Specification. He married Miss Swan, who
was the owner of five slaves.

3. The verdict. That he execute, and cause to
be recorded, a deed, securing the manumission of
three out of five of the slaves, and that he give a
pledge that this shall be effected during the pres-
ent Conference-year.

4. Penalty. That he be suspended until the
above conditions are submitted to—that is, deposed
Jrom the order of the ministry.

Now, sir, I deny the legality of the indictment
—the justice of the verdict—and ask that the
appellant be released from the operation of the
penalty.

The indictment, I say, is illegal. He is charged
with having violated the “well-known usage and
determined purpose of the Baltimore Conference.”
Under what rule of our Discipline, sir, I would in-
quire, could an Annual Conference arraign and try
a member for violating a usage or purpose of its
body? The Discipline of the Church is the com-
mon charter under which any and every Methodist
preacher holds his membership in an Annual Con-
ference. It never before entered my mind, sir,
M. E. Church, South. 125

that two opinions could exist among sane and
sober-minded men on this point. The duties of
an Annual Conference are so clearly defined in a
series of plain questions at page 23 of the Disci-
pline, and a few other separate rules in different
parts of the book, that its powers cannot be a
matter of doubt. They are executive only. The
power to make “rules and regulations” for the
government of the Church is ceded in the consti-
tution of the Church to the General Conference
only. This body has defined in the rules of Dis-
cipline the conditions of membership in an Annual
Conference ; and under this charter, and this alone,
membership is held in these bodies. What rule of
Methodist Discipline is he charged with violating ?
None, sir, none. The committee who brought in
the indictment charges him in plain terms with
having acted contrary to the “usage and deter-
mined purpose” of the Conference. For this, and
this alone, he was tried—convicted upon his own
testimony—condemned and dishonored! The in-
dictment does not even specify the enactment of
the Conference to which it makes direct refer-
ence. Did ever a more lawless procedure come
to the knowledge of this body? The counsel, sir,
seems to have entirely overlooked this fact, by
which his cause is most fatally embarrassed—
unless the paternity of abolition feeling pervading
this body should shield it from the condemnation
126 Organization of the

it deserves. He is bold to set forth in his argu-
ment, as the charge against Mr. Harding, “that he
knew, what ought to have been with him of preémi-
nent importance, THE LAW OF THE BALTIMORE CONFER-
ENCE.” What law, sir? The imperfect and informal
indictment does not tell us. But the counsel is free
to supply the deficiency. He tells us, a law to
which the case of a Brother Hansberger gave rise;
by which they forbid any of their members to hold
slaves under any circumstances, and declared that
any who might disregard the decision, “should be
deemed guilty of contumacy.” ere, then, is the
law of the Baltimore Conference under which he
was informally indicted. Is this a legal indict-
ment? This question involves another. Had this
Conference a right to make a term of membership
on the subject of slavery? Did Mr. Harding, or
any other member, hold his membership under this
legislation, or under the rules of Discipline? There
surely can be no room for difference of opinion here.
The Conference had no such legislative powers, and
all attempts to suspend the membership of Mr.
Harding upon conditions defined by their legisla-
tion, is wholly illegal. So confident am I of the
correctness of this position, that at a proper time
I may safely appeal to the bench of Bishops—
some one or more of whom presided in this Con-
ference—for the authority by which this was done.
The matter involves higher responsibilities than
M. E. Church, South. 127

that of the mere Conference. Why was it that
an accredited member of this Conference was put
upon his trial under an indictment framed upon the
legislation of the Baltimore Conference? (Bishop
Morris replied it was not so—he was tried for a
breach of the Methodist Discipline.) Sir, you
must stand corrected on this point. The docu-
ment—the written indictment—is proof to the
contrary.. The argument of counsel on this floor
makes him directly responsible for a breach of the
“law of the Baltimore Conference,” on the ground
that he was not ignorant of, but knew the law, its
purpose, and design. The reply of the Bishop
(for which I thank him) is a full concession that
to try him for his membership, under any law of
the Conference, was a wholly illegal proceeding.
The indictment itself is the proof that he was so
tried, and its illegality all must admit. Our Bish-
ops are sent to preside in the Annual Conferences,
for the specific purpose of preserving a unity in
the administration by keeping them within the
limits defined in the charter. I repeat, therefore,
that at the proper time I may request the reason
of this oversight. If, then, the indictment he ille-
gal, the verdict and penalty which arose upon it
are each illegal; the whole transaction is illegal,
and a reproach to the Conference, and should be
set aside as null and void.

The verdict, I say, is unjust, as well as illegal.
128 Organization of the

He was convicted, the Bishop tells us, and so the
counsel argued also, for a breach of the Methodist
Discipline. Allow, for the sake of argument, that
this was so; it is still true that he was not in-
dicted—he was not charged with this offense.
And can it be just to indict a man for one offense,
and try him for another? Or what amounts to
the same, render a verdict against him for being
guilty of another! And will this body sanction
a proceeding so contrary to all the forms of law,
and so utterly subversive of all the principles of
justice? I trust not. Ican hardly persuade my-
self that the most rabid and fanatical feeling on
the subject of slavery which can be supposed to
exist in any part of this house, could betray you
into a decision so violative of all the principles of
right reason. But it is assumed in the argument
of the counsel that the legislation of the Balti-
more Conference in the case is in conformity with
the rules of Discipline on the subject of slavery.
Allow this to be so, it does not help the cause of
the Conference; for it would only be a conviction
of a breach of Methodistic rules by induction
merely. No one, I presume, should contend for
the legality or justice of an act depriving him of
his ministerial office, held under the rules of Dis-
cipline, when he was only convicted of a violation
of these rules by induction. And, sir, we deny all
right to an Annual Conference to pass resolutions
M. E. Church, South. 129

interpreting the rules of the Discipline, and then
trying their members under such resolutions, as
the statutes of the Church. Such powers in an
Annual Conference would entirely supersede the
General Conference.

Again, we do not allow that the “law of the
Baltimore Conference,” in this case, is in accord-
ance with the Discipline of the Church on the sub-
ject of slavery. We do not, therefore, allow that
the appellant was justly convicted of a breach of
Methodist rule by enduction even. I need not go
over the ground occupied on this point in my first
speech. I will only meet the issues raised by the
argument of counsel. First, he maintains, on be-
half of the Conference, that the rule in relation
to traveling preachers holding slaves requires an
unconditional manumission, without regard to the
fact whether or not the slave be permitted to enjoy
his freedom under the laws of the State. He ar-
gues a distinction in the rules as to apply to mem-
bers or to local preachers, and to traveling preach-
ers. Sir, I propose to meet his argument fairly
and squarely. He maintains that the rule, stand-
ing as the second answer to the questions on
slavery, page 196, requires the traveling preacher
to manumit his slaves, whether the laws permit
them to enjoy freedom within the State or not.
(If I do not state him correctly, let him put me
right.) Now, sir, let it be regarded that the jist

6*
130 Organization of the

answer in this section of Discipline, in which there
is no ambiguity of language, settles the entire
question of eligibility to office in the Church, so
far as slavery is concerned—eligibility to any order
in the ministry, to any office in the Church. The
rule in regard to traveling preachers was passed
in 1800. This, which covers the whole ground of
eligibility, was adopted in 1816. It may, there-
fore, be taken as a fair exponent of the point in
the former, which is supposed to be doubtful.
Again, sir, the counsel overlooks the fact, in criti-
cising this point, that the traveling preacher is
only required to execute a “deed of emancipa-
tion” in this specified condition, “if it be practica-
ble.” Now surely, sir, it was not the design to
require the mere execution of a deed! This, at
all times, ¢s practicable. The meaning of the rule
is plainly this: it requires a traveling preacher to
secure the actual freedom of his slaves, “conform-
ably to the laws of the State in which he lives,”
“if it be practicable”—that is, if the laws will
permit them to enjoy liberty.

But it is farther argued, that Harding’s case is
not covered by the rule of Discipline, because the
laws of Maryland do permit the liberated slave to
enjoy his freedom. I will not go over this point,
which has been set before the Conference in the
most satisfactory manner by reading the laws of
the State, accompanied by the opinions of two
M. E. Church, South. 131

gentlemen of great legal distinction in the State
of Maryland, showing beyond doubt that this posi-
tion of the counsel in the case is incorrect. Again,
sir, if this were a doubtful point in itself, we have
shown in opening this case, from the express stat-
ute of the State of Maryland, and the highest
legal opinion upon it, Judge Key and the Hon.
W. D. Merrick, both of Maryland, that Mr. Hard-
ing had no interest in the slaves of his wife, farther
than what related to the proceeds of their labor.
He could not, without the consent of his wife, execute
a legal deed of emancipation, as he was required
by the Conference to do. I do not know that a
similar law exists in any State in this Union. So
that if the laws of any State in the Confederacy
cover the case of any member in the Church who
has become possessed of slaves by marriage, the
case of Mr. Harding is protected by the laws of
the State in which he lives. Indeed, sir, it ap-
peared to me that the counsel after all yielded this
question—if my ear correctly caught his meaning.
He argued vehemently against the laws of Mary-
land as most iniquitous in their tendency—such
as no man ought to submit to. In this, sir, he
yielded the point, and I claim the decision on be-
half of the appellant. Surely this body will not
give a decision in the teeth of State legislation,
and also of an article of our religious faith, ac-
knowledging the authority of the civil legislature,
132 Organization of the

and. an express statute in the Book of Disci-
pline.

One other point, sir. Brother Collins allows
what was implied by the silence of Brother Tip-
pett, that if the appellant had been understood to
“pledge himself and his wife, if the slaves should
consent, to send them to Liberia, or to a free State,
this case had never come here.” The record itself,
which has been read before this Conference, shows
that he refused to give the required “ pledge” on
the ground that he could not do it consistently with
the laws of the State. (I quote from memory, the
journal not being before me.) This fully warrants
the inference that he stood pledged to free his
slaves on the terms provided by law—nay, the
record committed him to do this. The law allows
of emancipation, provided they will leave the State.
The journal, therefore, is against the position of
the counsel; for it is a fair inference from the
record, that he was ready to free his slaves, with
their consent to leave the State. This pledge
necessarily involved the consent of his wife, who
held the legal title. The recollection of Brother
Gere is therefore correct, and that of the other
members of the delegation is at fault. The coun-
sel is still farther at fault. He affirmed, over and
over again, that the argument urged by me, from
the late law of Maryland, fixing the legal title to
the slaves of Mrs. Harding, was an after-thought
M. E. Church, South. 133

—that he never heard of it before. This is par-
ticularly unfortunate, for he allows that the legal
opinion of the Hon. W. D. Merrick was before the
Conference; and in this he specifically alludes to
the fact that the legal title to the slaves was in
Mrs. Harding, and not in him. And yet, in the
face of this clearly-implied pledge, and the proof
of utter inability to effect the legal emancipation
of the slaves without their consent, so rabid were
they to effect an abolition purpose, that they ex-
pelled him the body.

Then, sir, I maintain the appellant violated no
rule of Discipline. He only violated a law of the
Baltimore Conference—a law which they had no
right to make; and which, being made, is a plain
and palpable contravention of the existing rule of
Discipline on the subject. The indictment, then,
is illegal; the verdict is equally unjust; and the
penalty, by consequence, unwarranted and oppres-
sive.

The 23d Article of our faith acknowledges the
supreme authority of the State in all civil matters.
The Conference act specifically subjects our rules
on slavery to be controlled by State legislation.
This, be it observed, is in special conformity with
the article of religion just alluded to. It has been
shown, from the statutes of Maryland, that the
legal title to these slaves was not in Mr. Harding,
but in his wife. It is farther shown, that if the
134 Organization of the

title was in Harding, that he could not secure the
freedom of the slaves without compelling them to
go to Liberia, or to a free State. Now, if the de-
cision of this Conference sustain the Baltimore
Conference, you will require Harding to execute
a legal deed, manumitting slave property which
does not belong to him. You also require him to
secure their freedom, contrary to the provisions of
the laws of the State, (provided they were his,)
which allows of their freedom only when they
consent to leave the State. In all this will you
not place yourselves in the most ridiculous atti-
tude before the world? Will you not perpetrate
a most wanton act of injustice toward the appel-
lant? Will you not adopt a measure the most
reckless of the claims of humanity that can be
imagined? For, if Mr. Harding obeys your man-
date, and manumits the slaves, without their con-
sent to leave the State, they will be forced, under
the operation of the civil authority, to dissolve the
ties which now bind parents to children and other
near relatives. In addition to this, you set up
your authority in the premises as supreme, in plain
and palpable violation of the 23d Article of relig-
ion, and the rule of Discipline in conformity thereto,
which binds you, in the most solemn manner, to be
subject to the civil legislature on the subject of
slavery. Are you prepared for all this?

Again, Mr. Harding was tried according to the
M. E. Church, South. 135

indictment brought in by the committee, not for a
breach of your Discipline, but for a violation of a
law of the Baltimore Conference. If you sustain
the Conference, you acknowledge the authority of
an Annual Conference to legislate laws or condi-
tions of membership in the body, in palpable vio-
lation of the constitution and Discipline of the
Church, which assigns this authority to the Gen-
eral Conference alone. Are you prepared for this?

And still farther. The law of the Baltimore
Conference, under which the appellant was bound,
is not only unauthorized by the Discipline, but in
flat violation of the compromise act of Discipline.
If you sustain the Conference, you render null
and void the plain construction of the Discipline
under which hundreds of traveling and local min-
isters now hold office and orders in the Church.
Are you prepared for all this? Surely you are
not, unless you are prepared to dissolve the bonds
which bind us together as a confederated body. I
ask, then, that you sustain the appeal, and release
Francis A. Harding from the act of the Baltimore
Conference, by which he stands suspended from
the-ministry, which he has held with acceptability
and usefulness for several years.

But if, after all, you should feel yourselves still
in difficulty on any one point of argument or
testimony out of which the foregoing conclusions
are made to arise, then let it be remembered that
136 Organization of the

the reading of the journal shows a manifest in-
formality, while the face of the indictment itself
is without all due form of law or usage, and well
calculated to embarrass the decision. In view of
this fact, the least the appellant has a right to ex-
pect is, that you should return him for a new trial.
With these remarks, sir, I submit the case.

On the following day Dr. Smith asked permis-
sion to make some farther observations, of a per-
sonal character, in reference to Mr. Harding.

Considerable opposition was made to this, on
the ground that both parties had been allowed a
most extended and patient hearing, and that it was
time the debate was closed.

The motion was put, and carried.

Dr. Smith said it would be remembered that a
motion to locate Mr. Harding had been made at
the Baltimore Conference; that either, on sugges-
tion, it was withdrawn, or, being ruled out, the
motion fell to the ground. He believed the reason
of that movement was, that the only proper
ground for location is unacceptability, which could
not be alleged in this case. An impression, how-
ever, in consequence of that motion, having gone
abroad prejudicial to the character of the appellant,
either as to his prudence, or talent, or general
acceptability, he (Dr. 8.) begged the Conference
to bear in mind that even were such impressions
correct, the question before them was, the legality
M. EF. Church, South. 137

or the illegality of his suspension on the ground
alleged in the record, and that alone was the ques-
tion for their decision. At the same time he took
that opportunity of saying, that the impression,
however it might have been circulated, was alto-
gether false.

Mr. Collins said that Dr. Smith had mistaken
the reason of the withdrawal of the motion for
location. The true reason was, that it was thought
that rule was not the proper one to be applied to
him, and the rule under which he had been tried
was the proper one.

At the close of these observations the call for
the vote became general, and Mr. Harly moved
that the decision of the Baltimore Conference be
reversed. The same being seconded, was put,
and a call made for the ayes and noes. The Sec-
retary proceeded to read the names. Dr. Olin
desired to be excused, on the ground that he had
not heard the journals read, and had only heard a
portion of the debates. Sometimes it was a pleas-
ant thing to avoid a responsibility; but in this
case he had no disposition to shrink from respon-
sibility, and would much rather have voted, but
he could not do it conscientiously.

The Conference excused him.

The Secretary announced the votes to be, noes
117, ayes 56; being a majority against the rever-
sal of 61.
138 Organization of the

The President announced that this vote affirmed
the decision of the Baltimore Conference. The
decision of the chair was appealed against, but
was sustained by a vote of 111 to 53.

Dr. Smith. I must and do ask the privilege of
spreading my protest on the pages of the Confer-
ence journal, and I do so because, to my own per-
sonal knowledge, there are men on the floor of this
house who voted against the resolution of Mr.
Early because they deliberately and solemnly
thought that the matter ought to go back to the
Baltimore Conference. But by a majority we
have been ruled out, and a fair decision of this
Conference has not been given. And I wish my
protest to go forth to the American Church, and
American people, to serve as a beacon-light to
warn the Church against the movements of a ma-
jority who can obliterate justice, and trample on
the rights of a minority.

A long conversation arose as to whether the
vote refusing to reverse the decision of the Balti-
more Conference confirmed that decision. A mul-
tiplicity of motions and amendments were made,
but eventually the discussion turned upon Dr.
Smith’s request to enter his protest. It was
moved that he have liberty to enter the same,
when Mr. Wiley said they had better wait and
see what it was first, and then they could decide
whether it should be entered upon the journal or not.
M. E. Church, South. 139

Dr. Smith said he trusted he knew too well
what was due to himself as a gentleman, to those
that acted with him, and to the Conference gener-
ally, to address them in any other than respectful
terms; but if they thought the paper would be
what they would like, they would find themselves
mistaken. No! they would not like that paper,
for it would contain truths that would burn in
their cheeks. (Cries of “order,” etc.) I am per-
fectly calm. I have got the floor, and you have
got the votes; and you can, having the votes, put
me down. Time was when such an excitement
would have unarmed me, and thrown me off my
defense; but no storm of excitement can now dis-
arm me of my self-possession. You cannot drive
me from my position; and you might as well at-
tempt to chain the lightnings, or confine the winds
in the caves of Eolus, as to put me down when I
have a right to be heard. I shall prepare such a
memorial as will fearlessly and thoughtfully ex-
press the sentiments of myself and those that
think with me; and no consideration shall induce
me to speak with timidity or fear at such a
crisis.

Mr. Early said he hoped they would remem-
ber that large majorities were apt to be tyran-
nical—he trusted they would keep calm. He was
quite so—as much as the affliction in which that
vote had involved him, and those around him,
140 Organization of the

would allow. After some farther conversation,
the order of the day was resumed.

The intelligence of the action of the General
Conference in the case of Mr. Harding was re-
ceived throughout the South with feelings of sad-
ness. It was regarded by the Church as an in-
fringement upon the Constitution under which the
two sections had lived and labored together so long
in harmony.

The name of Dr. William A. Smith had been
familiar to the Church for several years previous
to 1844. His commanding talents, his sterling
integrity, his fervent piety, his uncompromising
devotion to principle, and his ardent love for
Methodism, had earned for him a wide-spread repu-
tation in the Church; but in his able defense of
constitutional Church-government, as set forth in
his speeches in the case of Mr. Harding, he at-
tracted, as he had never before done, the attention
of both the Church and the nation. In the gi-
gantic strength of his mighty intellect he had
scarcely a peer. Standing from this period in the
front ranks of the American ministry, he seemed
to live far in advance of all his contemporaries.
In the family and social circle he possessed the
simple-heartedness of a child—everywhere else a
giant.

After a long and useful life, he entered into
M. E. Church, South. 141

rest. His last illness found him in the family of
his friend, the Rev. John C. Granbery, D.D., in
the city of Richmond, Virginia, where, on the
first day of March, 1870, he breathed his last.
We copy the following tribute to his memory
from the Minutes of the Virginia Conference:

The committee appointed to prepare a paper
which shall express the sentiments of this Con-
ference in regard to the death of Rev. Wm.
A. Smith, D.D., report a sketch of his life,
and the following resolutions in honor of his
memory:

On the list of our dead for the year now closing,
with grief and veneration we place the name of
William Andrew Smith. We know that his work
and fame are not the exclusive property of this
Conference, but belong to the whole M. E. Church,
South, of which he was so eminent a minister, if
we should not rather say to American Methodism.
It is also true that his name has appeared the
three past years on the minutes not of the Vir-
ginia, but of the St. Louis Conference. Yet living,
he was ours; and now that he is dead, we claim
him, in a special sense. His large heart embraced
the entire Church, his wise counsels guarded and
fostered her general interests, his great abilities
shed luster upon her name; and it is meet that
Bishops and Conferences should do him honor,
142 Organization of the

Let the West cherish his memory on account of
his two years of faithful pastoral labor in the city
of St. Louis, and of: that great and lasting work
to which he devoted his extraordinary powers
during the last year of his life—the establishment
of Central University on a deep and broad founda-
tion, not less by the awakening of a profounder
interest on the subject of education, hallowed by
religion, among the ministry and people, than by
the collection of funds for an endowment. But
in the bounds of our Conference he was born,
brought up, converted; of this body he was a mem-
ber more than forty years; of our history he is a
large, essential, illustrious part; to us he gave his
love and service from youth to old age, and we
are glad to acknowledge the debt of gratitude and
affection we owe him; among us he died, and in
the beautiful cemetery of Hollywood in Richmond
his dust reposes, awaiting the resurrection-morn.
To some of us he was a brother dearly beloved,
to more of us an honored father: if others loved
him, we yet more.

Wm. A. Smith was born in Fredericksburg, Va.,
Nov. 29, 1802. His mother was a consistent
member of the Methodist Church, and in death
prayed that her son might live to preach the glo-
rious gospel. His father was a man of honorable
character and position. Both died when he was
of a tender age. For a time the orphan boy had
M. EF. Church, South. 143

rough usage; but he was afterward adopted and
brought up by Mr. Russell Hill, a friend of his fa-
ther, and a worthy merchant of Petersburg. When
seventeen years old, he was converted, and joined
the M. E. Church. He had received a good Eng-
lish education, and had commenced the study of
the classics; but feeling that he was called of God
to the ministry, and not being able to attend col-
lege as he desired, he studied privately one year
at the house of his uncle, Mr. Porter, in Orange
county, and taught school two or three years in
Madison. In 1824 he traveled the Gloucester
Circuit under the Presiding Elder; in February,
1825, he was admitted on trial into the Virginia
Conference. In 1835, while agent for Randolph
Macon College, then in its infancy, he met with a
fearful accident: the carriage which he was driving
upset and fell on him, breaking his right thigh and
dislocating his left hip, and badly laming him for
life. He was a delegate to the General Confer-
ence of the M. E. Church every session from 1832
to 1844, and occupied a high position in that great
council as an adviser and debater. In the memo-
rable appeal case of Harding, and in the yet more
important extrajudicial trial of Bishop Andrew,
which led to the division of the Church, he won a
reputation wide as the United States, and inferior
to that of no minister of any denomination, for
the highest deliberative and forensic eloquence.
144 Organization of the

He was a member of the Louisville Convention
which organized the M. E. Church, South, and
of all the General Conferences of this Church to
the date of his death. He commanded universal
respect and confidence among his brethren by the
sincerity of his zeal, the wisdom of his counsels,
and the power of his reasoning. His impress will
long remain on the legislation and institutions of
Southern Methodism. In 1846 he was called
from the regular pastorate, by the urgency of the
trustees of Randolph Macon College, sanctioned
by the Virginia Conference, to the presidency of
this institution. He was selected for that place
because his courage, energy, and strength of intel-
lect, seemed indispensable, not only to the pros-
perity, but even to the saving, of this noble insti-
tution. Twenty years of his life were consecrated
to this cause—years of self-sacrifice, of unremit-
ting toil, of courageous battling with difficulties
and victory over them; of hope where others
desponded, of faith where others doubted, of reso-
lution where others wavered. He was diligent in
his study, diligent in his lecture-room, diligent in
travel through Virginia and North Carolina to col-
lect money and to arouse interest in behalf of the
College. The number of students steadily in-
creased, the standard of scholarship was elevated,
and through the joint efforts of Dr. Smith and the
agents of the College, an endowment-fund of $100,-
M. EF. Church, South. 145

000 was raised. Then came the terrible war which
emptied those classic halls, and swept away the
funds which had been gathered with so much toil.
Yet not in vain had he labored. Scores of ministers,
hundreds of pious young men, educated under his
care, molded by his influence, are this day in their
several spheres carrying on the same grand work
to which he was devoted, and have learned, from
his teachings and example, never to surrender,
never to despair of Randolph Macon.

We have not spoken of Dr. Smith as a preacher
and pastor. He soon rose to eminence in the
ministry, and stood with the foremost in the pul-
pit and pastorate for faithfulness, ability, and
success. He had a deep, distinct, happy, constant
experience of the saving grace of God in Christ
Jesus. His zeal for the cause of religion was
pure, steady, consuming. He was fully conse-
crated to the work of the ministry. The doc-
trines and polity of our Church had no stronger,
nobler expounder and champion than he. His
sermons were “logic on fire’—grand and solid
discussions of the leading truths of the gospel,
animated with deep emotion. Thousands were
converted under his ministry; many of them
became preachers of the word, in our own and
in other denominations; the Churches he served
were ever edified and trained, not less by his pas-
toral fidelity than by his luminous discourses.

7
146 Organization of the

As a man, he was of marked character. Who,
that ever saw him, could forget that bold, frank,
noble face and forehead, which revealed at a
glance the lofty attributes of his intellect, the
loftier attributes of his heart? Cunning and de-
ceit he knew not; to fear he was a stranger; his
convictions he was ever ready to avow and main-
tain. Yet, with all his courage and indomitable
energy of will, he had a tender, sympathetic heart,
and much of a child-like spirit, simple, unselfish,
trustful, easy to be entreated.

In the fall of 1866 he was transferred to the
St. Louis Conference. In the summer of 1869 he
visited Virginia to build up his shattered constitu-
tion. He suffered severely with chronic dysen-
tery, complicated with other disorders, and grew
worse each succeeding month, until he breathed
his last March 1, 1870, in the city of Richmond.
He retained the clearness of his faculties, and
delighted to speak of the great themes of Chris-
tianity, especially that saying of John, “God is
love.” He told us that from the day he gave his
heart to God in youth, that self-surrender had
never been recalled, and his trust in Christ had
never wavered. He compared his state of mind
to a lake embosomed in a deep forest, whose peace-
ful surface the rough winds could not reach.

We offer for adoption by the Conference the
following resolutions:
M. E. Church, South. 147

1. Resolved, That in the death of Rev. Wm.
A. Smith, D.D., not only has the Church lost a
bright and shining light, but this Conference is
called to mourn the loss of an honored father,
who for many years was to us a strong tower of
defense and an able leader in every good enter-
prise.

2. Resolved, That we glorify God in the exalted
character, the abundant labors, the enduring fruits
of usefulness, and the happy death of Dr. Smith;
and that we will cherish his memory, and teach
our children to hold him in honor.

3. Resolved, That we convey to his widow and
children the assurance of our deep sympathy in
their bereavement, and of our prayers that the
blessing of Providence and the comfort of the
Holy Spirit may be richly vouchsafed to them in
their hour of need.

4. Resolved, That Rev. J. E. Edwards and Asa
Snyder be appointed a committee to procure a
suitable monument and have it placed over the
grave of Dr. Smith, and that they be authorized
to receive contributions to defray the expenses of
the same. Leroy M. Lez,

J. C. GRANBERY,
D’Arcy Pau.
148 Organization of the

CHAPTER II.

The influence of the action of the General Conference in
the case of Francis A. Harding—Resolution of Drs. Capers
and Olin—Speeches of Drs. Olin and Durbin—Commit-
tee of Pacification appointed — Dr. Durbin’s résolution,
proposing a day of fasting, humiliation, and prayer—The
committee fail to agree on any plan of compromise—
Resolution of Mr. Collins in reference to Bishop Andrew
—Report of the Committee on Episcopacy—Bishop An-
drew’s statement—The report of the committee made the
special order of the day for the 22d of May — Great
interest felt— Alfred Griffith’s speech—Benjamin M.
Drake’s motion to amend the preamble—Bishop Soule
addresses the Conference—Speeches of Peter P. Sandford
and Dr. William Winans—Speeches of Elias Bowen
and Dr. Lovick Pierce—Speeches of Jerome C. Berry-
man, Seymour Coleman, Dr. Smith, and Thomas String-
field—Sketch of Thomas Stringfield—Speech of Thomas
Crowder—Sketch of Thomas Crowder—Speech of Dr.
Nathan Bangs.

THE influence of the action of the General Con-
ference in the case of Francis A. Harding was felt
throughout the Church. It was not difficult for any
one of ordinary discernment to foresee that it must
result in the alienation of one section from the other.
M. £. Church, South. 149

The South in this case had only demanded what
was pledged by the constitutional enactments and
provisions of the Church. With less than this,
they could not and ought not to have been satis-
fied. But this now being denied them by a domi-
nant majority, they could no longer feel secure in
the rights and privileges which had been guaran-
teed them by the Discipline. The North at the
same time, inflated with victory, were unwilling
to yield any advantage they had achieved in a con-
test in which some of them had been struggling
for the mastery for years. The General Confer-
ence, however, was not without conservative men
who resided in the North, and who were anxious
to avert the catastrophe which threatened not only
the peace, but the continued unity, of the Church.
Among these, Dr. Stephen Olin, of the New York
Conference, and Dr. John P. Durbin, of the
Philadelphia Conference, were prominent. Dr.
Olin had spent several years of his ministry in
the South Carolina Conference, and Dr. Durbin
was born and reared in Kentucky; and they were
fully aware that the recent action of the General
Conference must imperil, if not destroy, Method-
ism in the South, unless some pacific measures
should be adopted. In connection with Dr. Wil-
liam Capers, of the South Carolina Conference,
Dr. Olin signed the following resolution, which
was presented:
150 Organization of the

“In view of the distracting agitation which has
so long prevailed on the subject of slavery and
abolition, and especially the difficulties under
which we labor in the present General Conference,
on account of the relative position of our breth-
ren North and South on this perplexing question;
therefore,

“Resolved, That a committee of three from the
North and three from the South be appointed to
confer with the Bishops, and report within two
days as to the possibility of adopting some plan,
and what, for the permanent pacification of the
Church.”

A member moved as an amendment that three
delegates from the Middle States be added to the
committee.

Dr. Capers said: There are only two points
named in the resolution—slavery and abolition. I
presume there must have been such an interpreta-
tion put upon the resolution as the writer did not
mean. I did not intend to say that this Gen-
eral Conference was made up of either pro-
slavery men or abolitionists, and that there is a
third party, who are neither. The question has
only two sides—slaveholders and non-slaveholders.
These two positions present, perhaps, in the dif-
ferent aspects, the general state of the Church.
Two interests only are generally recognized; and
in providing for the committee, I am far from in-
M. LE. Church, South. 151

tending to say that all the brethren in the non-
slaveholding States are abolitionists, any more
than that the others are all slaveholders. If in
this view I am mistaken, I am unfortunate.

A motion to lay the amendment on the table
was made, and Dr. Durbin, and almost at the same
moment Dr. Olin also, rose. Dr. Durbin offered
to give way, but the chair said that Dr. Olin could
not speak to the original motion, and Dr. Durbin
proceeded. He hoped the amendment would not
prevail. He understood Dr. Capers to mean by
the North, non-slaveholding States, (Dr. Capers
assented,) so that the chair could appoint either
from the North, East, or West.

The motion to lay the amendment on the table
was carried.

Dr. Olin spoke to the original motion. He
spoke under the most powerful emotion, and in a
strain of tenderness that moved every member of
the Conference. He said he felt, from his relation
to the Conference as a member for the first time,
it became him to explain why his name was at-
tached to the resolution. It had been shown to
him within five minutes, and he had asked upon
it the advice of one whose opinion was entitled to
great weight. He could not refuse to second it,
believing it was offered in a spirit of conciliation.
He had feared for these two or three days that,
though possibly they might escape the disasters
152 Organization of the

that threatened them, it was not probable. He
had seen the cloud gathering, so dark that it
seemed to him there was no hope left for them
unless God should give them hope. It might be
from his relation to both extremities, that, infe-
rior as might be his means of forming conclusions
on other topics, he had some advantages on this;
and from an intimate acquaintance with the feel-
ings of his brethren in the work, he saw little
ground of encouragement to hope. It appears to
me (he continued) that we stand committed on
this question by our principles and views of policy,
and neither of us dare move a step from our posi-
tion. Let us keep away from the controversy
until brethren from opposite sides have come to-
gether. I confess I turn away from it with sor-
row, and a deep feeling of apprehension that the
difficulties that are upon us now threaten to be
unmanageable. I feel it in my heart, and never
felt on any subject as I do on this. I may take
it for granted that we speak as opponents here.
I have had no part in this controversy. It has
pleased God that I should be far away, or laid
upon a bed of sickness. I have my opinions and
attachments, but I am committed by no act of
mine to either side; and I will take it on me to
say freely that I do not see how Northern men
can yield their ground, or Southern men give up
theirs. I do indeed believe, that if our affairs
M. E. Church, South. 153

remain in their present position, and this General
Conference do not speak out clearly and distinctly
on the subject, however unpalatable it may be, we
cannot go home under this distracting question
without a certainty of breaking up our Confer-
ences. I have been to eight or ten of the North-
ern Conferences, and spoken freely with men of
every class, and firmly believe that, with the few-
est exceptions, they are influenced by the most
ardent and the strongest desire to maintain the
Discipline of our Church. Will the Southern
men believe me in this—when I say I am sincere,
and well informed on this subject? The men who
stand here as abolitionists are as ardently attached
to Methodist Episcopacy as you all. I believe it
in my heart. Your Northern brethren, who seem
to you to be arrayed in a hostile attitude, have
suffered a great deal before they have taken their
position, and they come up here distressed beyond
measure, and disposed, if they believed they could,
without destruction and ruin to the Church, to
make concession. It may be that both parties
-will consent to come together and talk over the
_ matter fairly, and unbosom themselves, and speak
all that is in their hearts; and as lovers of Christ
keep out passion and prejudice, and with much
prayer call down the Holy Spirit upon their de-
liberations, and feeling the dire necessity that op-

presses both parties, they will at least endeavor
7*
154 Organization of the

to adopt some plan of pacification, that if they
may go away it may not be without hope of meet-
ing again as brethren. I look to this measure
with desire rather than with hope. With regard
to our Southern brethren—and I hold that on this
question, at least, I may speak with some confi-
dence—if they concede what the Northern breth-
ren wish—if they concede that holding slaves is
incompatible with holding their ministry—they
may as well go to the Rocky Mountains as to
their own sunny plains. The people would not
bear it. They feel shut up to their principles on
this point. They love the cause, and would serve
God in their work. I believe there is not a man
among them that would not make every sacrifice,
and even die, if thereby he could heal the division.
But if our difficulties are unmanageable, let our
spirit be right. If we must part, let us meet and
pour out our tears together; and Jet us not give
up until we have tried. I came into this Confer-
ence yesterday morning to offer another resolution.
It was that we should suspend, now that the Sab-
bath had intervened, and shed its calmness and
quiet over our agitated spirits, that we should sus-
pend our duties for one day, and devote it to fast-
ing and prayer that God may help us, so that, if
we have not union, we may have peace. This
resolution partakes of the same spirit. I cannot
speak on this subject without deep emotion. If
MM. LE. Church, South. 155

we push our principles so fur as to break up the
Connection, this may be the last time we meet.
I fear it! I fear it! I see no way of escape.
If we find any, it will be in mutual moderation, in
calling for help from the God of our fathers, and
in looking upon each other as we were wont to do.
These are the general objects I had in view in
seconding the resolution, as they are of him who
moved it.

The reverend gentleman sat down amid the
most deep and hallowed excitement, and the re-
sponsive prayers of the whole Conference.

At the close of Dr. Olin’s speech, Dr. Durbin
addressed the Conference. He had but a word
to say. He could never forget the scene before
him that morning. Dr. Olin had said that he
scarcely indulged the hope, though he felt a strong
desire, that the measure proposed would be suc-
cessful. For himself, he thought he could discern
light, notwithstanding the darkness that hung
around the question; and he felt not only a desire,
but a strong hope, that they should yet be deliy-
ered from the dangers which impended over their
heads. Yes, he clung to the hope of the contin-
ued unity of the Church. Abraham, in great dif-
ficulties, believed in hope against hope, and yet
most gloriously realized his hope, and became the
father of many nations. He said he saw ground
for this hope in the tenderness of spirit which had
156 Organization of the

been manifested so generally since the introduction
of the resolution; and he felt now, as he had felt
since his arrival in the city, the most confident as-
surance that brethren of all parties would sacrifice
every thing but their ulterior principles, for the
continued unity of the Church. Dr. Olin had told
them very justly, that if they said slavery, under
all circumstances, is incompatible with the functions
of the gospel ministry, they put their brethren in
the South in a position which must destroy all
hopes of usefulness on their part in the Church.
Sir, (continued Dr. D.,) we have not said this; we
cannot say it; the committee will not say it. I
do not believe our gallant vessel is yet to be un-
loosed from her moorings. She was exposed to a
dangerous rock in the South, and an equally dan-
gerous one in the North. There is an open sea
between them. The brethren of the North will
not drive us upon the rock in the South, if the
brethren in the South will not drive us upon the
rockin the North. If the committee address them-
selves to the difficulties in the spirit which now
pervades the Conference, we shall yet see brighter
and better days. The two days, during which
the committee will have this subject under consid-
eration, will be an era in the history of Method-
ism, and I think that one of them at least should
be observed as a day of fasting and prayer. The
Wesleyan Conference in England, after the death
M. E. Church, South. 157

of Mr. Wesley, was on the brink, apparently, of
dissolution, and yet the wise counsel of a few
brethren, and the compromising spirit of the gen-
eral body, devised a plan of permanent pacifica-
tion. I would say, then, let every heart and
tongue be quiet during these momentous two days.
It is almost in my heart to say, Cursed be he that
shall speak a word to inflame or exasperate any
one, while this subject is in the hands of the com-
mittee.

In the discussion of this resolution, in addition
to the gentlemen already named, Mr. Drake, of
the Mississippi, Mr. Crandall, of the New England,
Mr. Early and Dr. Smith, of the Virginia, and
Mr. Dow, of the New York Conference, took part.
On motion of Mr. Collins, the resolution was
unanimously adopted, after changing the verbiage,
substituting the words “a committee of six,” for
“a committee of three from the South and three
from the North.” Dr. Capers, of South Carolina,
Dr. Winans, of Mississippi, and Mr. Early, of Vir-
ginia, represented the South in the committee;
while the North was represented by Dr. Olin, of
New York, Mr. Crandall, of New England, and
Mr. Hamline, of Ohio.

On the same day Dr. Durbin offered the follow-
ing resolution, which was adopted :

“Resolved, That to-morrow be observed by this
Conference as a day of fasting and humiliation be-
158 Organization of the

fore God, and prayer for his blessing upon the
committee of six, in conjunction with the Bishops,
on the present difficulties; and that the hour from
twelve to one o’clock be devoted to religious serv-
ices in the Conference.”

In the discussion of the resolution offered by
Drs. Capers and Olin, the possibility of the divis-
sion of the Church was referred to by speakers on
hoth sides of the line. It was very evident, even
to a casual observer, that the continued unity of
the Church was scarcely to be hoped for.

On the 15th of May, “a few minutes before
twelve o'clock, Bishop Soule was invited into the
chair by Bishop Andrew, to conduct the prayer-
meeting which the Conference” had appointed the
day “before under the resolution offered by Dr.
Durbin.” “ Bishop Soule gave out two hymns, and
at his request, Brothers Richey and Early, and
Brothers Crandall and Winans, led the devotions
of the Conference. After these exercises, Bishop
Hedding was called into the chair, gave out another
hymn, and invited Brothers Capers and Fillmore
to lead in prayer.”

The committee of six were expected to report
on the 16th of May. Instead of presenting their
report, Bishop Soule asked, in their behalf, for
longer time for consideration. Unable to agree
on any plan of compromise, by which the two
sections could be reconciled, on the 18th they
M. E. Church, South. 159

communicated this intelligence to the Confer-
ence.

All efforts at compromise thus far had failed.
Neither the resolution offered by Drs. Capers and
Olin, asking for the committee of six, nor yet the
one offered by Dr. Durbin, had effected any settle-
_ ment of the points in controversy.

When Dr. Smith said, “ The South does not de-
sire disunion—come when it may, it shall be forced
upon us,” he expressed the sentiment of not only
the delegates in the General Conference from the
Southern States, but also of the entire laity whom
they represented. The South did not desire di-
vision—yet to avert it seemed impossible. Nor do
we think that the North wished the division of the
Church, abstractly considered; but, feeling an op-
position to slavery, they resolved to carry their
point, though in violation of a solemn compact
which had been entered into, and under which the
Church had flourished, even if in so doing they
would drive the last vestige of Methodism from
the South.

Frequent efforts have been made to impress
the public mind with the conviction that the
connection with slavery, by marriage, of the Rev.
James O. Andrew, D.D., one of the Bishops
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, had led
to the division of the Church, and no pains have
been spared to devolve on this distinguished min-
160 Organization of the

ister of the gospel the responsibility of the sep-
aration.

It will be seen, however, that up to this period
the name of Bishop Andrew, as connected with
slavery, had not been referred to in the official
proceedings of the General Conference. The sub-
ject had been brought before the Conference in
the shape of memorials and petitions, and in the
appeal of Mr. Harding. The excitement, too, was
already intense. The clouds of disunion were
rolling up from the horizon of the Church in every
direction, previous to the arrest of the official
character of Bishop Andrew. Unwilling as the
Southern delegates were to entertain the idea of
the division of the Church, they were, neverthe-
less, forced to apprehend such a result.

Bishop Andrew, however, had become connected
with slavery several years previous to this Gen-
eral Conference, without his consent. <A lady of
Augusta, Georgia, had bequeathed to him a mu-
latto girl, in trust until she should be nineteen
years of age; the will provided that he should
then send her to Liberia, if she was willing to go.
If, however, she would not consent, then he should
retain her and make her as free as the laws of
Georgia would admit. When the time arrived,
she refused to go to Liberia, and was consequently
legally the slave of Bishop Andrew. She contin-
ued to reside in her own house, on a lot owned by
M. E. Church, South. 161

the Bishop—he deriving no pecuniary benefit from
her services—and having the privilege of going to
Liberia at any time. She, however, steadily re-
fused to leave the State of Georgia, and as the
laws of that State would not permit her emancipa-
tion, nor admit to record any deed of emancipa-
tion, Bishop Andrew was legally her master.

Bishop Andrew had also inherited, by the death
of his former wife, a colored boy, whom he could
not liberate in the State of Georgia, but whom he
proposed to set free as soon as he was prepared to
earn his own living, provided he would leave the
State.

He had also married a lady in January, 1844,
who held certain slaves, inherited from her former
husband, and belonging solely to her. Unwilling
to become their owner, and the law not permitting
their emancipation, he secured them to his wife
by a deed of trust.

It will be seen by the above statements, that
Bishop Andrew’s connection with slavery was
accidental, and not in violation of any law of the
Church.

The compromise-law, adopted by the General
Conference of 1816, that “no slaveholder shall be
eligible to any official station in our Church here-
after, where the laws of the State in which he
lives will admit of emancipation, and permit the
liberated slave to enjoy freedom,” was still in full
162 Organization of the

force. This law evidently conveys the meaning
not only that where the laws of the State “ will
admit of emancipation, and permit the liberated
slave to enjoy freedom,” no slaveholder shall be
eligible to any official station in the Church until
he manumits his slaves, but also that in those
States where the laws will not “admit of emanci-
pation, and permit the liberated slave to enjoy free-
dom,” the owning of slaves should constitute no
barrier to any office.

In the State of Kentucky, and in other States
where the laws admitted of emancipation, and per-
mitted the liberated slave to enjoy freedom, preach-
ers were not elected to orders; while in Tennessee,
and the Southern States, it was very common for
our preachers to own slaves.

As late as the autumn of 1844, after the action
of the General Conference in the cases of Harding
and Bishop Andrew, Bishop Janes, who presided
over the Kentucky Conference, refused to ordain
preachers elected to orders who were slaveholders,
but at the same time, in reply to an inquiry made
by the Rev. J. B. McFerrin, of the Tennessee Con-
ference, who was present, declared his willingness
to ordain any preachers in Tennessee who might be
elected to orders, without any reference whatever
to their connection with slavery. Bishop Andrew
resided in the State of Georgia, and although a
slaveholder, was not involved in slavery in any
M. £. Church, South. 163

offensive sense. Moreover, the laws of that State
would not admit of emancipation, nor could any
slave emancipated in Georgia enjoy freedom. And
hence, in the eye of the law, he was as fully pro-
tected as any other minister in the Church.

The spirit of fanaticism was rife. The doctrines
of a “higher law” were threatening to overflow
the mound of recognized authority. Emboldened
by their success in the case of Mr. Harding, on
the 20th day of May, Mr. Collins offered the fol-
lowing preamble and resolution :

“ Whereas, it is currently reported, and gener-
ally understood, that one of the Bishops of the
M. E. Church has become connected with slavery;
and, whereas, it is due to the General Conference
to have a proper understanding of the matter;
therefore,

“Resolved, That the Committee on the Episco-
pacy be instructed to ascertain the facts in the
case, and report the result of their investigation
to this body to-morrow morning.”

On the 21st of the month the committee pre-
sented the following report:

The Committee on Episcopacy, to whom was
referred a resolution, submitted yesterday, in-
structing them to inquire whether any one of the
superintendents is connected with slavery, pre-
sented their report on the subject.
164 Organization of the

The committee had ascertained, previous to the
reference of the resolution, that Bishop Andrew
was 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, they presented a written communication
from him in relation to this matter, and asked
leave to offer 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, be-
queathed to me a mulatto girl, in trust that I
should take care of her until she should be nine-
teen 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.
When the time arrived, she refused to go to Libe-
ria, and of her own choice remains legally my
slave, although I derive no pecuniary advantage
from her, she continuing to live in her own house
on my lot, and has been and still is at perfect lib-
erty to go to a free State at her pleasure; but the
laws of the State will not permit her emancipa-
tion, nor admit such deed of emancipation to
M. E. Church, South. 165

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.

“2d. 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
whenever I shall be satisfied that he is prepared
to provide for himself, or I can have sufficient se-
curity that he will be protected and provided for
in the place to which he may go.

“3d. In the month of January last I married
my present wife, she being at the time possessed
of slaves, inherited from her former husband’s es-
tate, and belonging to her. Shortly after my mar-
riage, being unwilling to become their owner, re-
garding them as strictly hers, and the law not per-
mitting their emancipation, I secured them to her
by a deed of trust.

“ Tt will be obvious to you, from the above state-
ment of facts, that I have neither bought nor sold
a slave; that in the only circumstances in which I
am legally a slaveholder, emancipation is imprac-
ticable. As to the servants owned by my wife, I
have no legal responsibility in the premises, nor
could my wife emancipate them did she desire to
166 Organization of the

do so. I have thus plainly stated all the facts in
the case, and submit the statement for the consid-
eration of the General Conference.

“ Yours respectfully,

(Signed) “ James O. ANDREW.”
All which is respectfully submitted.
(Signed) Rosert Pane,

Chairman of Committee on Episcopacy.

Upon the presentation of the report of the com-
mittee, accompanied by the statement of Bishop
Andrew, Mr. Collins moved that the report be laid
on the table, to be taken up to-morrow as the
special order of the day. His reason for so mov-
ing was that a meeting of the Northern delegates
was to be held at four o’clock this afternoon. He
wished any of the Southern brethren to attend
who might choose to do so.

The 22d of May, the time fixed upon for the
commencement of the prosecution of Bishop An-
drew, on motion, the case was proceeded with.

Mr. Griffith, of the Baltimore Conference, rose
and said, I beg leave to present a resolution and
suitable preamble in reference to the subject now
pending before the Conference, and made the order
of the day.

The Secretary then read the following preamble
and resolution :
M. LE. Church, South. 167

“ Whereas, the Rev. James O. 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 settled
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 gen-
eral 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 slaveholding
States, and elected by the General Conference of
1832, as a candidate who, though living in the
midst of a slaveholding population, was neverthe-
less 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 in-
novation 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,

Joun Davis.”

If the trial of Francis A. Harding awakened a
168 Organization of the

general interest throughout the Church and the
nation, that interest was greatly augmented in the
case before us. The Conference was held in the
Green Street Methodist Episcopal Church, the gal-
leries of which were crowded to overflowing, while
the intelligence of the arrest of the official char-
acter of Bishop Andrew sent a thrill of sadness
to every Southern heart.

As has been already stated, Bishop Andrew had
violated no law of the Church. He had exercised
the functions of a Bishop in the Methodist Epis-
copal Church since 1852, at which time he was
elevated to the Episcopal office. For the office
which had been confided to his trust, he was emi-
nently fitted. His executive abilities were of a
high order, his pulpit qualifications commanding,
and as a platform speaker he had scarcely a peer
among his brethren. His moral and religious
character, too, was above reproach. For twelve
years he had presided over Conferences in the
North as well as in the South, with the greatest
acceptability. But he was connected with slavery,
it matters not how, and the fell spirit of religious
frenzy must strike him down.

The resolution requesting Bishop Andrew to re-
sign his office, having been offered by Mr. Griffith,
he addressed the Conference in its support at con-
siderable length. He took the position that “a
Bishop is only an officer of the General Confer-
M. E. Church, South. 169

ence, created for specific purposes, and for no other
than the purposes specified ;” that originally it was
not “intended to constitute the Bishop an officer
for life under all circumstances, but they reserved
to themselves, as Annual Conferences, power even
to change every feature of the system of govern-
ment—to change every thing pertaining to the
character of the Church, save the doctrines.”
These views had been held for more than twenty
years by Mr. Griffith, and in the radical war against
the powers of the Episcopacy, as exercised ac-
cording to the Discipline in the appointment of
Presiding Elders, had been freely expressed by
him. They had never, however, been avowed in
any previous General Conference.

At the close of the speech of Mr. Griffith, Dr.
Longstreet proposed an amendment to the pream-
ble and resolution, to which Mr. Griffith objected.
Mr. Drake, of Mississippi, then suggested that
the preamble be altered so as to read, “ Whereas,
Bishop Andrew has become connected with slavery
as stated in his communication,” to which no ob-
jection being offered, the chair announced it in-
corporated with the preamble and resolution.

Bishop Soule then addressed the Conference,
and said, I rise, sir, seeing no other speaker on
the floor, and I assure you and the Conference,
strange as it may seem, with as perfect calmness
of spirit as I ever remember to have possessed at

8
170 Organization of the

any period of my life. I cannot, and J need not,
conceal from you, sir, or from this General Confer-
ence, that, since the commencement of this session,
I have been the subject of deep mental distress
and agony. But in this respect the season of my
bitterness has passed away. Conscious that I
have pursued, with close thought and prayer, such
a course as was within my power to harmonize the
brethren, and to strengthen, if possible, the peace
and unity of this body and of the whole Church,
I have calmly submitted the whole matter to the
overruling and superintending providence of Al-
mighty God. I stand connected with this subject
individually, and in connection with my colleagues,
in a peculiar point of view, but I have at this
period no personal interest whatever in.the matter.
I am, I assure you, willing, entirely willing, so
far as I am myself concerned, to be immolated ;
but I can be immolated only on one altar, and that
is the altar of the union of the Methodist Episco-
pal Church. You cannot, all the powers of earth
cannot, immolate me upon a Northern altar, or a
Southern altar. Here I take my stand, my posi-
tion. But I did not rise, with the indulgence of
this body, this morning, even to touch the merits
of the question now before this body. It would
ill become me in the relation I sustain to this body
and to the Methodist Episcopal Church to do it.
But I have risen to suggest to the Conference
M. EF. Church, South. 171

some considerations which I hope may have their
influence upon the mode of conducting this weighty
concern. Ispeak to men of God—to men of ex-
perience—to men who have analyzed the elements
of human nature, and of ecclesiastical and civil
polity—to men of thought, who have been accus-
tomed to trace causes and their effects through all
the diversified forms of human society. I speak
to Christian men and Christian ministers—I speak
to young men, who have not had the same time
as the aged, nor the same opportunities from ex-
perience and observation, to grasp fully these great
and interesting subjects. I trust I shall hear on
the floor of this Conference the voice of age and
of experience; and I beseech you, brethren, by
the deepest interests that can affect our beloved
Zion—lI beseech you by a voice from the tomb of
a Wesley and a beloved Asbury, and from the
sleeping- places of our venerated fathers, to let
your spirits on this occasion be perfectly calm and
self-possessed, and perfectly deliberate. I advise,
in the place in which I stand, that the younger
men hear the voice of age. I beg you, brethren,
to remember that you stand at this moment before
several tribunals. You are before (I speak to the
General Conference) a tribunal in the galleries;
and whatever view you may take of this subject,
if they cannot judge of the merits of the case be-
fore you, such are their enlightened ideas of what
172 Organization of the

belongs to the spirit of Christianity, and the office of
Christian ministers, that they will sit in judgment
on you. I would also observe here that, as a great
branch of the Protestant Christian community, our
position in regard to this subject is unique and distin-
guished from all other branches of that community.
So far as I know, there is not a single sister (Prot-
estant) Church in these United States, or in the
world, having any legislation on the subject of
slavery. I say, in this we are unique, we are
alone. We therefore stand in our action on this
subject before the tribunal of all the Christian
Churches of our own land, and our actions will
certainly be judged of by that tribunal. We act
here also in the capacity of a General Conference,
and every thing we do here is to go out before the
whole body of ministers and people whom we here
represent—it is to go out in the face of the whole
Church, and they will judge with respect to our
action in the premises. We are, too, before the
tribunal of public opinion, and statesmen, civilians,
and jurists, have an interest in this matter, and
they will judge us on other grounds, and in refer-
ence to our standards, and rules of action, and not
as we shall be judged by the great mass. They
will judge by the rules of the “book,” according
as our action is founded on facts, and is in accord-
ance with the rules of that book which contains
the constitution and laws of the Church. This
M. LE. Church, South. 173

consideration will certainly occupy your minds on
this question. I have only to add, and with this
remark I shall take my seat, waiting results not
without solicitude and anxiety, not without the
deepest concern for the perpetual union, and un-
divided interests of this great body; but calm, and
perfectly undisturbed, waiting the issue, and com-
mitting all to God. A word about decorum, and
the mode of conducting your debates. I myself
love to hear hard arguments, but I love to hear
them in soft words; and I believe that any man
who has carefully weighed this matter will con-
cede that arguments are proportionably stronger
as they are conveyed in soft words. The effect
of argument in debate certainly does not depend
on the loudness with which we speak. It is not
necessary to raise your voices so that you may
be heard in the remotest parts of this house, and
even in the street. Let me admonish brethren
who may take part in this discussion, that it is far
from being important to their case that they should
use great strength of voice, and where this is done
an almost universal opinion is awakened that there
is undue excitement of passion in the case. Avoid
all reflection on each other. Meet brethren’s ar-
guments if you can. Confute those arguments if
you can, but do it in a Christian spirit, and with a
calm and undisturbed mind. Then whatever shall
be the report concerning the General Conference,
174 Organization of the

it shall at least be said that we have conducted
ourselves with that calmness, and with that Chris-
tian and ministerial sobriety, which becomes so
grave an assembly, and so grave a question. I
thank the Conference for their indulgence while I
have spoken.

The Conference was then addressed by Mr.
Sandford, of the New York Conference, who sup-
ported the resolution exclusively on the ground
of expediency, and basing that expediency on
the convulsions that would follow, and the loss
of very large numbers of their members if they
failed to remove Bishop Andrew.

Mr. Sandford was followed by Dr. Winans, of
the Mississippi Conference, who made the first
speech on the Southern side. “Dr. Winans was
an impetuous speaker, after the Greek model, very
plain in attire and appearance, wearing no cravat,
making no flourishes. But if any adversary sup-
posed that this unpretending exterior indicated a
mind of ordinary caliber, he very soon changed
his opinion. Massive strength, put in motion by
a glowing spirit, furnished a mighty momentum
which struck like the swell of the sea when
stormy winds rule the waters.” He said:

I appreciate the remarks of our venerable su-
perintendent, especially in regard to the manner in
M. £. Church, South. 175

which this discussion should be conducted. There
is one point, however, on which I must put in a
disclaimer against the inference which the Bish-
op’s remarks would warrant. I cannot speak on
any subject without speaking loud; and I beg to
advertise this Conference, and the spectators, that
in speaking loud I give no indication of exasper-
ated feeling. It is the misfortune of my constitu-
tion, and depends on no particular excitement on
the question, and I approach this subject with as
much calmness as I do any other. It may be, sir,
that it is the calmness of despair, yet result it
from what it may, I am calm, and perfectly so.
That the Conference has a right, an abstract right,
with or without cause, to request any member of
that body to retire from the Episcopacy, I am not
prepared to deny. Iwillreadily admit, My. Presi-
dent, that if you, or any one of your venerable
body, should be subject to that fearful misfor-
tune, alienation of mind, it would be proper to
obtain your consent to retire from your very im-
portant station, if indeed you might be competent
to give your consent in such a case. I do not,
then, dispute the abstract right of this Conference
to memorialize Bishop Andrew on the subject of
his retiring from the office he sustains; nor do I
conceive it to be out of the limits of that proper
right for each member to assign the reasons for
adopting a course so unusual. Conceding this
176 Organization of the

right, I claim, on the other hand, a full and per-
fect right for every member to assign the reasons
why he should not join in this request. It is
farther the privilege of every member closely to
scrutinize, and rigidly to criticise, the reasons as-
signed for this remarkable act, by those who move
it. It will be my purpose to use hard arguments,
but not hard terms, though I confess I find it diffi-
cult to avoid them. If, however, I do use hard
terms, they shall not proceed from hard feelings.
I do not know, sir, whether I am to consider it
at all necessary to notice the arguments that have
been already presented in support of the request
which is attempted to be made to the Bishop. But
I shall call your attention, and the attention of the
Conference, to the arguments in the preamble of
the resolution inviting the Bishop to retire. Isay,
then, that the first statement, the very first state-
ment or proposition in the preamble is not true.
I do not mean to say that those who placed it
there intended to state an untruth. I believe they
thought it was true when they made the state-
ment; but according to.my views of the matter,
it is not true that the settled and invariable usage
of the M. E. Church has been not to elect a per-
son having slaves to the office of a Bishop. The
mere fact that a thing has not been done, does not
constitute usage. I admit that it is a fact that no
slaveholder has been elected, and it would be true
M. E. Church, South. Lit

to affirm that it has been the invariable custom of
the M. E. Church to choose for Bishops those who
were not slaveholders. It may be, sir, that slave-
holders have never possessed an individual among
them suitable for the office; or sectional matters
may have influenced the vote. How are we to
arrive at the fact that the mere election 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. I
could take you back to the General Conference at
Philadelphia, and show that it was in the purpose
of the Western and Middle men to choose for the
office of Bishop a slaveholder, and in all probabil-
ity he would have been elected to the office, had
there not been management and interference on
the part of the Baltimore Conference to defeat the
design. The usage of the Church is not against
the election of a slaveholder to the office of Bishop.
I will correct myself—I should say, such a Bishop
would have been elected, had-it not been for the
management and trickery, not of the Baltimore
Conference, but of certain members of that Con-
ference.

The next point is more palpably untrue than
that I have just dismissed. It is not true in point
of fact, though it has the show of truth. It goes
on the principle that Bishop Andrew was elected

8*
178 Organization of the

to the office on Southern nomination. That some
Southern brethren were concerned in his nomina-
tion is true, and we do not deny it. But that the
Southern party, the great Southern sectional divis-
ion of the M. E. Church, elected him, is not true,
and it is well known not to be the fact. There
was a report prevailing that some Southern breth-
ren were drawn into a conspiracy by which the
rights of the South would have been invaded.
Brother Pickering nominated a man to the office
who was known to be a slaveholder, and who
would have been elected had not Bishop Andrew—

My. Pickering. I would correct the brother. I
never nominated any such man.

Dr. Winans. I am glad to be corrected, sir;
but there are on the floor of this house those who
are enlisted in the enterprise of degrading Bishop
Andrew from his office who did propose such a
measure. When we stated on this question, that
we were prepared to vote for a slaveholder for the
office of Bishop, we were met by the introduction
of James O. Andrew; and but for this, a slave-
holder would, in all probability, have been elected
in 1832, and selected by Northern and Western
men. Ido not believe that I shall be contradicted
on this subject, and in contradiction to the state-
ment in the preamble of this resolution I may say,
that we only just missed the election of a slave-
holding Bishop.
M. EF. Church, South. 179

Well, now, sir, what are the facts of the case?
Let us look them in the face. Suppose it had
been inconsistent with the genius of Methodism—
though it is not, and you know it is not, you dare
not assert it, for the Discipline stares you in the
face if you do—but suppose it was contrary to the
Discipline to elect a man to this office who held
slaves ; suppose all this, what are the facts of the
case? Why, that Bishop Andrew had no part in
constituting himself a slaveholder, inasmuch as he
gave no consent thereto, and had no opportunity
of expressing his dissent. This, I presume, will
not be denied, inasmuch as the Bishop’s statement,
having been incorporated in the preamble, was pre-
sumed to be true. Well, then, what does he say
in the first instance? Why, that without his con-
sent, and indeed against it—for he labored to free
the girl who was left to him, but was overruled
by the strange fact that the girl, at years of dis-
cretion and intelligence, preferred to be a slave,
and refused to be set free. This would appear
strange to the North, but we in the South know
all about it. Well, by the girl’s own free and un-
restrained determination to continue his slave, he
was prevented from emancipating her, and her
will bound him up to the destiny of being a slave-
holder, in spite of all his desire to the contrary.
The other case is of a similar character: the provi-
dential devolvement upon him of a slave whom
180 Organization of the

he now declares free to go when and wherever he
will, provided there be assurance that he will be
provided for, or will be able to provide for himself.
Bishop Andrew did not wish to be a slaveholder,
but became one in spite of his efforts to the con-
trary.

Well, he was a slaveholder in 1840, exposed to
the malediction of the North, and just as unfit for
the general superintendency of the Union in De-
cember, 1843, as in January, 1844, for he was
then a slaveholder. And what harm was there in
marrying a woman who had been pronounced by
one of the most venerated of our ministers to be
as fit a lady for a Bishop’s wife as he ever saw?
What evil had he done by becoming a slaveholder
farther by that marriage, when he was already a
slaveholder beyond control? What had he done,
by that marriage, to prejudice his case? Just
nothing at all, for he was already a slaveholder
by immutable necessity. In forming a matrimo-
nial alliance, in seeking one who was to become
the mother of his children and the companion of
his declining years, he had married a pious and.
estimable lady, and that is the whole matter; and
yet he is advised to leave the superintendency on
this ground. It seems to me that this is the only
ground maintained by the advocates of the reso-
lution.

What has he done by executing the deed of
MM. E. Church, South. 181

trust? What did he do to alter the position of
the slaves? Did he bring upon them any conse-
quences prejudicial to them? Or did he incur any
obligation to deprive that lady of her property be-
cause she had given him her hand? Why, the
position will be this, that James O. Andrew must
cease to be a Bishop because he has married a
lady; for he has done these negroes no harm by
his momentary possession of them. Was it his
duty to marry this lady in order that he might set
these slaves free? If not, did such duty arise
out of the fact that he had married the lady? The
proposition condemns itself, inasmuch as a change
of relation has taken place by marrying that lady,
and he is now no longer a slaveholder except
against his consent. By the providence of God
at first, and by the unsolicited operations of fellow-
beings, he is constituted a slaveholder, from which
relation the laws of Georgia will not permit him
to disengage himself. Being in this situation, and
being exposed to the resentment of the North, he
marries an interesting woman, and places her prop-
erty back in her hands, under the precise circum-
stances in which it.was before the marriage. And
in spite of all this, this General Conference gravely
meditates the act of removing him from that office
he has filled with such entire satisfaction to the
Church.

But, sir, the main point relied upon in this mat-
182 Organization of the

ter, is the expediency of the course contemplated.
Expediency! Or, in other words, such a state of
things has been gotten up in the North and in
the West as renders it necessary for Bishop An-
drew to retire from the office of the superinten-
dency, if we would preserve the union of the
Church. Sir, I will meet this by another argu-
ment on expediency. By the vote contemplated
by this body, and solicited by this resolution, you
will render it expedient—nay, more, you render
it indispensable—nay, more, you render it uncon- -
trollably necessary, that as large a portion of the
Church—and, permit me to add, a portion always
conformed in their views and practices to the Dis-
cipline of the Church—I say that by this vote
you render it indispensably, ay, uncontrollably,
necessary that that portion of the Church should
—I dread to pronounce the word, but you under-
stand me. Yes, sir, you create an uncontrollable
necessity that there should be a disconnection of
that large portion of the Church from your body.
It is not because there are prejudices waked up
by unceasing agitation year after year, in opposi-
tion to the spirit and language of the Discipline,
but it arises out of the established laws of society
—from a state of things that is under the control
of political and civil government, which no minis-
ter of the gospel can control or influence in the
smallest degree. If you pass this action in the
M. E. Church, South. 183

mildest form in which you can approach the Bishop,
you will throw every minister in the South hors
de combat ; you will cut us off from all connection
with masters and servants, and will leave us no
option—God is my witness that I speak with all
sincerity of purpose toward you—but to be dis-
connected with your body. If such necessity ex-
ists on your part to drive this man from his office,
we reiissert that this must be the result of your
action in this matter. We have no will, no choice
in this thing. It comes upon us as destiny; it
comes with overwhelming force, and all we can do
is to submit to it. Let us, then, pass before you,
and then give such weight as you think fitting to
the argument for expediency embraced in the pre-
amble to this resolution, and let that determine
your vote in this matter. There may come a time
when your hearts will bleed at the recollection of
having cut off from your body—for we will never
go voluntarily—as firm and good friends, and as
honest in our attachment to Discipline, as any
other portion of the Church. Yes, the time may
come in your after-lives when you will lament an
act that has been done so hurriedly. I say hur-
riedly, because it has been scarcely three weeks
under consideration—hurriedly, because you have
had no intercourse with your societies on the sub-
ject—hurriedly, because the question has not even
been mooted in those regions where you appre-
184 Organization of the

hend your difficulty—and hurriedly, because you
are cutting off thirteen hundred preachers and four
hundred and fifty thousand members, against whom
lies no allegation of having departed from the prin-
ciples and laws of your Book of Discipline. Sir,
I protest against the vote that is sought on this
question; and I conjure you by the love of God,
by your regard for the Discipline of the Church,
and by the interests of the South, to pause ere
you take this step. I throw out of the considera-
tion the interests of the masters of slaves, those
hated, and abhorred, and despised beings—I leave
out of the question the spiritual welfare of thou-
sands of those poor oppressed people for whose
interests and welfare you profess so much solic-
itation—the bleeding slave himself, cut off, by
your action, from our approach, ministry, and
counsels—I leave these things out of the question,
and conjure you to let the union of our beloved
Church plead effectually to prevent you from giving
the vote which is sought by this resolution. Al-
ready, (and perhaps this may be the last time I
shall have the opportunity to speak on the floor
of this General Conference,) I say, already the
evil effects of the abolition excitement are becom-
ing apparent, for to that is to be traced the dire
necessity you plead in the case. It has hedged
in the poor negro, and shut him up from access to
his minister, and it has shut the mouth of. the
M. E. Ohurch, South. 185

minister, and will you throw the blackness and
darkness of death over him by your vote? Will
you drive us from the Connection, or will you hold
back your hands and prevent the pernicious effects
of such action as is at present sought at your
hands? I leave the matter with you, and your
conscience, and your God.

Bishop Wightman, in his Life of Bishop Capers,
in reference to Dr. Winans’s speech, says it was
delivered with “true Demosthenean force. The
irrepressible emotion, the ‘erect countenance,’ the
flashing eye, and ringing voice, the unfaltering
prediction of consequences that were to follow,
and resound through all Methodist history, made
the speech memorable.”

Mr. Bowen, of the Oneida Conference, spoke in
favor of the resolution, but in his speech no new
argument was presented, advocating simply the
plea of expediency.

At the close of Mr. Bowen’s speech, Dr.
Lovick Pierce, of Georgia, addressed the Confer-
ence. In his speech he said:

Can anybody, therefore, expect that this man,
blameless before heaven and before this con-
gregation of ministers, even if he were asked
to do this thing by two-thirds of this Confer-
ence, could do it, would do it, dare do it, with
186 Organization of the

the effects that would grow out of the movement
written, with the finger of God, upon his heart? Is
it the doctrine of expediency, sir? I believe that
this is the only plea that can be put in that has
one single vestige either of truth, justice, or pro-
priety; and allow me to say, that unless I am
greatly mistaken, the adoption of the resolution
now before the General Conference, on the ground
of expediency, is an act done by Methodist min-
isters by which, in the very nature of the case,
they invert the established order of the New Tes-
tament. In the difficulties which arose in the
Church in the days of the great apostle to the
Gentiles, he said, in reference to this point, “All
things are lawful for me, but all things are not
expedient.” Shall we ask Bishop Andrew to pay
this tribute to expediency? Why, if it were law-
ful to demand it, and the yielding of it would pro-
duce such disastrous results as must be produced,
it would be inexpedient for this body of God-
fearing ministers to make any such demand. To
the law and to the testimony I feel myself bound
closely to adhere. I would not say any thing that
has been said by any predecessor in this case;
yet I beg leave to add, in farther confirmation of
the remarks made by my worthy Brother Winans,
that of all notions that were ever defended before
a body of Christian ministers, the notion of asking
an act of this sort on the ground of expediency,
M. E. Church, South. 187

when it is as inexpedient for one portion of a
united body of Christians to this as it is expedient
for the other that it should be done, is, to me, the
most fearful mockery of all sound logic. Do that
which is inexpedient for us, because for you it is
expedient! Never, while the heavens are above
the earth, let that be recorded on the journals of
the General Conference of the Methodist Episco-
pal Church! What is the evidence that it is ex-
pedient that this thing should be done in any por-
tions of these growing States? The opinion and
testimony of the brethren? Take our brethren
on their own ground in other portions of the
United States equally linked together by that
golden chain which, if it be possible to avert it, I
pray God may never be broken. Do you ask us
how this matter is to be met? It is to be met by
the conservative principle and the compromise
laws of this Book of Discipline. Show your peo-
ple that Bishop Andrew has violated any one of
the established rules and regulations of the Church,
and that he refuses to conform himself to those
established laws and usages, and you put your-
selves in the right, and us in the wrong.

My beloved brethren, there is but one man
older than myself in the land that I live in who
is now in the ministry, and he is at present an
inefficient man. I am the oldest efficient minister
belonging to the Georgia Conference. I never
188 Organization of the

wedded my heart to my family with less desires
that this wedlock should be ruptured, than I did
to the Church which found me a sinner, and I
hope, through God’s grace, will land me in heaven.
And since the day that I made myself acquainted
with the Methodist Church—and will the record-
ing angel write it this moment in the book of eter-
nity?—I affirm, that, so far as religion has been
concerned in the South, no question has ever done
so much harm to saving godliness as the intermed-
dling of the Methodist Church with the question
of slavery; and could the cap of hell be lifted to-
day, I fear that the groans of many damned would
be heard coming up, and dating the ground of
their fall from the merciless act of the Church
against a free constitution and the laws of the land.
The Methodist Church may have had much to do
with slavery in the concrete, as it is called, but
has no more business with slavery in the abstract
than with the tariff; and, what is a great misfor-
tune, you may put what construction you please
on your actions and doings in this case, but you
have “passed the Rubicon.” In the year 1836 I
desired that a protest should be entered on the
journal of the Conference against what was then
believed to be the doctrine, that any man who,
by any circumstance, was connected with domes-
tic slavery, should be deemed as living under an
act of outlawry with this Church.
\

M. E. Church, South. 189

Finally, I say, pass this resolution, and the
whole of the Southern States are hurled into con-
fusion at once; and the brother that would lie
down to be trampled upon by such an act of this
body, would be regarded as unworthy the office
he held, and unworthy to preach the gospel of
Jesus. I am against the resolution, and am glad
to make it known that I am against it on princi-
ples pure as those that kindle the glory of high
heaven—not because I am a pro-slavery man, but
because God did not call me to legislate on these
matters.

Jerome OC. Berryman, of the Missouri Confer-
ence, next spoke in opposition to the resolution.
He was followed by Seymour Coleman, of the
Troy Conference, who was in favor of the reso-
lution. Give them a slaveholding Bishop, he
said, and you blow up the fortress from its foun-
dations. He had expected a most peaceful Con-
ference, supposing, as he did, that the firebrands
had left their ranks last year, and he thought that
now they should have peace in their borders. The
Southern brethren knew little of the labors of the
Northern men to secure. their comfort and safety.
Give them a slaveholding Bishop, and they make
the whole of the North a magazine of gunpowder,
and the Bishop a firebrand in the midst. The
position Bishop Andrew sustained in the Church
190 Organization of the

had made this matter to cause more trouble than
any thing he had ever known to take place in the
Church. The step was wonderfully unfortunate.
To the brief speech of Mr. Coleman, Dr. Smith, ,
of Virginia, made the following reply: He wished
to correct the brother in his statement of a fact,
and one on which the whole merit of his argument
was based. It was that he, in deep sympathy
with the South, had successfully warred against
abolitionism. They had not so understood it, and
if he would make his point good by argument he
would have accomplished a great thing. They
had viewed it differently, and believed it to be
different. The arguments of the abolitionists had
been as harmless as the lispings of helpless infancy
in their influence on the South. They gained
some bad eminence, and were the means of doing
harm to the poor blacks. That the North opposed
the abolitionists out of sympathy for the South,
would demand proof. In 1836 the Northern
brethren complained that it was among them that
abolitionism was doing all the mischief; that there
its desolating footsteps were to be marked and
mourned over, and groaned under, as a burden
intolerable to be borne. And such was the truth
of the case. In 1836 we-were asked to leave
this matter alone, and were told that the North-
ern brethren had more at stake than we had.
And they succeeded in shutting the mouths of
M. E. Church, South. 191

some of the brethren, but not with my consent.
They now would have it understood that it was
for the South they then labored.

Messrs. Thomas Stringfield, of the Holston
Conference, Thomas Crowder, of Virginia, John
Spencer, of Pittsburgh, and Dr. Nathan Bangs, of
New York, were the next speakers—the two for-
mer in opposition to the resolution, and the two
latter in favor of it. Messrs. Stringfield and
Crowder, in their remarks, were courteous, digni-
fied, convincing. The argument, based upon expe-
diency, that had been urged by Northern men, was
triumphantly met by Mr. Stringfield. It is inez-
pedient, said he, that Bishop Andrew should
resign. If the Bishop be shuffled out of office,
some one must be elected to fill his place; and
such a one, whoever he may be, will meet with as
little favor in the South as Bishop Andrew would,
with all his disabilities, in the North. Who, sir,
will elbow Bishop Andrew out of the pulpit, and
fill his place in our Southern congregations? Will
any one do so that lifts his hand in favor of this
resolution? It is not likely, sir, that another
Southern man will be elected; and, sir, a dine is
to be drawn by this vote. It will be a zest vote—
a party vote; and, sir, 1 know not what sort of
heart a man must have that could go to the South,
as Bishop Andrew’s successor, under these circum-
stances. Iam sure he would be unfit for a Bishop.
192 Organization of the

I know this is a delicate subject—and some may
think it should not be mentioned here—but it will
be thought of by the people, and, in spite of us, it
will have its bearings. There are two sides to
this question. Inexpediency is set over against
inexpediency—one evil against another evil; and
as a lesser evil is a relative good, it is to my mind
clearly inexpedient for Bishop Andrew to resign.

Thomas Stringfield was a Kentuckian by birth,
his parents having removed to that State previous
to 1796, in which year he was born. Blessed
with religious instruction from early childhood, at
eight years of age he openly professed faith in
Christ. In 1806 his parents removed to Alabama,
where he resided until at the age of sixteen years,
when, in obedience to his country’s call, he en-
tered the American army under General Jackson.
In the army he was no less distinguished for his
faithful adherence to the religion he. professed,
than for his intrepid courage in the field of battle.
During his connection with the army, while on
guard, he received a shot, from an Indian’s gun,
in the forehead, which left a scar for life.

At the Tennessee Conference in 1816, he offered
himself as an itinerant, and was accepted. From
the time he entered the ranks as an itinerant
preacher until God called him home, he performed
the duties of an evangelist with commendable zeal.

A careful examination of the appointments filled
M. E. Church, South. 193

by Mr. Stringfield, and an acquaintance with
the territory which they embraced, impresses us
at once, not only with the vastness of his labors,
but with the privations he endured, and the sacri-
fices he made for the cause of Christ.

At the General Conference of 1836 he was
elected to the editorship of the South-western
Christian Advocate, located in Nashville, Tennes-
see, in which position he remained until 1840.

Retiring from the duties of an editor, he travels
for five years as Agent for the American Bible
Society, and then returns to the pastoral work,
where, with unabated zeal, he prosecutes his high
and holy calling. At one time we find him the
valiant leader of the hosts on an extensive and la-
borious District, and then we see him performing
the duties of an evangelist in a more circumscribed
sphere; and anon as Agent for Strawberry Plains
College.

The immense labors he had performed through
a period of thirty-seven years, told fearfully upon
his constitution, and in 1853 he was placed on the
superannuated roll. Rallying again, in 1854 he
travels the Dandridge Circuit, and in 1855 is ap-
pointed to Loudon Station. Unable longer to go
in and out before his brethren in the active duties
of an itinerant preacher, he returns to the super-
annuated list, where he remains until called from

labor to reward. At half-past two o'clock, on
9
194 Organization of the

the 12th of June, 1858, he sweetly fell asleep in
Jesus.

Mr. Crowder said: Our Discipline demands of
a minister of Jesus Christ the same purity of heart
and rectitude of life which are inculcated in the
Bible; and if these remain as fair as those of any
other elder in the Methodist Episcopal Church,
then he has violated no rule of our Discipline—
because he could not have a fair moral and minis-
terial character if he were a transgressor of either
the precepts of religion or the rules of Discipline.
On what, then, I ask again, does this expediency
stand as its foundation? Its foundation, sir, is a
combination of circumstances; and this combina-
tion of circumstances has been brought about chiefly
by a spirit which I may call “Legion.” But where
did this spirit start up? In the Sonth? No, sir;
the South has not been troubled atall. Its course
has been quiet, obedient, and kind, leaving myself
out of the question. The South, sir, has never
made your table groan with petitions and memo-
rials for changes in our Discipline. The South
has never made any aggressive complaints against
the North. Sir, this spirit came up in the North
and East; I mean the spirit of “abolition.” This
spirit. has put the causes in operation which have
brought about the combination of circumstances
that is the basis of this expediency. Now, sir, I
M. E. Church, South. 195

ask these fathers and these brethren if this basis
of expediency is not too dark in origin, and ruin-
ous in results, on which to depose our beloved
Bishop Andrew? Can you do this, brethren?

an ce, It is well known how seriously
he abolition movement affected the South, bring-
ing about strife and division between them and the
North. Now, sir, let it go abroad that this Gen-
eral Conference requested Bishop Andrew to re-
sign on the ground of an expediency so doubtful
as this, because he may not be cordially received
in some portions of the North, and the division of
our Church may follow—a civil division of this
great confederacy may follow that, and then hearts
will be torn apart, master and slave arrayed against
each other, brother in the Church against brother,
and the North against the South—and when thus
arrayed, with the fiercest passions and energies of
our natures brought into action against each other,
civil war and far-reaching desolation must be the
final results. My dear brethren, are you prepared
for this? No, Iam sure you are not. Then re-
fuse to pass the resolution now pending before the
Conference, and permit our beloved Bishop still to
go on his way of usefulness, and I am persuaded
that the fears which many brethren honestly enter-
tain will never be realized. Brethren, we have,
as instruments in the hands of God, been doing
a great work in the North and South; let us still
196 Organization of the

work together for the honor of our common
Saviour and the salvation of the souls of the peo-
ple, white and colored—let us bring the hearts of
the community generally under the influence of
religion, and the work of emancipation will come
on as a natural result.

It is with pleasure that we contemplate the
character of such a man as Thomas Crowder. He
was born in Wake county, North Carolina, Sep-
tember 22,1797. His parents were members of
the Methodist Episcopal Church, were deeply
pious, and endeavored to bring up their children
“in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.”

It had been the intention of Mr. Crowder to
prepare for the bar. No profession opened up
before a young man of promise at that period a
more attractive field than that of the law, and
none more readily invited to fortune or to fame.
To prepare for this profession, he had labored of
nights during his minority, and to attain this ob-
ject he was prosecuting his collegiate course.
But God had destined him for a higher and nobler
work.

He entered the Virginia Conference in 1821,
and soon took high rank among his brethren, and
filled many of the most important appointments in
that Conference.

The reply of Mr. Spencer was unworthy the
M. LE. Church, South. 197

occasion and the Conference of which he was a
representative. He said:

Well, sir, it is alleged that our present action is
a novel procedure. Admitted; but whose fault is
it? We never, till now, had occasion to complain
of any of our Superintendents. We now have,
and therefore our proceedings must be new. This
is plain. The inquiry is raised, By what rule can
we touch Bishop Andrew? What specific rule has
he violated? We ought to remember that the mere
silence of the Discipline in regard to a particular
case is no evidence that action in that case would
be contrary to our rules. An illustration will
place this in its true light. Suppose that instead
of marrying a respectable lady owning slaves,
Bishop Andrew had married a colored woman.
Would Southern or Northern brethren say, either
that he had broken an express rule of Discipline,
or that he would nevertheless be well qualified for
a Bishop in our Church? Neither the one nor the
other. They doubtless would depose him at once,
though there is no rule to be found declaring, in so
many words, that no white man shall marry a
colored woman on pain of degradation. It is
thought by some that before the case can be
reached a new rule must be made; and if so, it
would be an ex post facto law. So says some
driveler in the Tribune Extra found yesterday in
198 Organization of the

the Conference-room. He was ashamed to give
his name, and well he might, as he knew he was
meddling with other people’s business, and at the
same time dealing in. slanderous allegations. Let
us look at this. An ex post facto law is always
retrospective. But if we made a rule to rid our-
selves of our present difficulty, it would not be to
punish a past offense, but to remove from our
ecclesiastical car a present incumbrance, and one
that must be removed or crush us into ruin.

We hear much concerning the Constitution.
The word constitutional is repeated again and
again. Here Iam ata loss. I cannot tell what
brethren mean. I suppose the Constitution of
our Church to be embodied in our Articles of Relig-
ion, our Restrictive Rules, and our General Rules.
But where is it said, in these, that a slaveholding
Bishop must remain in office despite of the Gen-
eral Conference? or that no rule can be made to *
touch such a case? Nowhere. Then is it not
plain that these are high-sounding words used
without meaning? But, sir, much is said of ex-
pediency. Well, let us look at expediency. It is
alleged that it would be a dreadful thing to pass
the resolution before us, as a matter of expediency.
This is a grave subject. But is not expediency,
at the foundation of many grave and important
subjects? Mr. President, how did you and your
M. E. Church, South. 199

colleagues get into the Episcopal office? Expe-
diency put you there, expediency keeps you there,
and when expediency requires it, you shall be re-
moved from your seats—yes, every one of you.
Expediency is the foundation of our Episcopacy.
Nay more, it is the very basis of Methodism.
We are conjured by a brother, in a solemn manner,
to refrain, lest we ruin souls. He doubts not that,
if we could open the doors of perdition, and look
down into the world of woe, we should find that
souls were lost by being driven from the Method-
ist Church through her action against slavery in
the days of our fathers! I meet this by remark-
ing, some think in that event we would be likely
to hear wailings arising from those doomed to hell
by reason of our connivance at slavery.

Fearful things are said about division. Our
feelings have been roused up. We have wept and
prayed. The clouds have gathered in the distance.
We have seen the lightning. We have heard the
muttering thunders. Our destruction is threat-
ened. But if it comes, how can we help it? We
’ have made no change, and we ask none. Who
has brought this evil upon us? If we are ruined,
on whose head will rest the blood of a murdered
Church? The Lord have mercy onus! We now
come to this point: Shall we stand by our princi-
ples? Will we maintain true Methodism? Or
200 Organization of the

shall we suffer the most daring innovation upon
our usages? Must our foundations be uprooted,
and our fair edifice be tumbled into destruction, by
retaining a slaveholder in the Episcopacy?

The speech of Dr. Bangs was moderate in tem-
per. He congratulated the Conference on the kind
and Christian spirit they had hitherto maintained,
which he hoped would be preserved through the
whole of this important debate. He would make
a few remarks on what fell from Dr. Winans.
That gentleman had said that the preamble con-
tained in the proposition was not true, because it
affirmed that the having a slaveholding Bishop
was contrary to usage. Must they adopt a practice
to make it contrary to usage? When a practice has
always been adopted, it certainly is according to
usage. Now (said Dr. Bangs) I think that any
thing that has not been introduced into the prac-
tice of the Church is contrary to the usage of the
Church. This appears to me to be self-evident.
But the brother affirmed, if I understood him
right, that Northern men were ready to vote for _
a slaveholding Bishop, and consequently it had
like to have become the usage of the Church to
have such in the Episcopacy. Now, I never un-
derstood from any Northern man that he was
willing to vote for a slaveholding Bishop. It was
farther affirmed that it was only defeated by trick
Bh

M. E. Church, South. 201

and management. I do not know any thing about
such a trick. I never was in a caucus at all about
the nomination ofa Bishop. But I have heard
from the mover of this resolution, that in 1832,
the Baltimore delegation sent a committee to wait
on a slaveholder from the South, and ask him if
he was willing to emancipate his slaves, if they
would nominate him for the office of Bishop. He
very courteously, and in a Christian spirit, took
time to deliberate, and eventually told them he
could not do it, and that was the reason why they
declined to nominate him. Did that look like
nominating a slaveholder to the Episcopacy? And
they nominated James O. Andrew because he was
not a slaveholder; but at that time he was not gen-
erally known to the General Conference, and I am
given to understand that only about a dozen votes
were given him from the South, or slaveholding
States. At any rate, he had not a majority of
the Southern States, and he could not have been
elected without the votes of the Northern Confer-
ences. So much, then, as to the allegation that
the appointment of a slaveholder to the office of
Bishop was not contrary to the usage of the
Church and to its principles. We have been uni-
form on that subject. Now, sir, I wish to correct
an error the brother from Virginia made yester-
day. He said that this originated in abolitionism.

This is a mistake. It is the old Methodistic anti-
g* .
202 Organization of the |

slavery feeling, and I would make no allusion

: either to abolitionists or slaveholders. I love

them both, God knows I do. Now, with respect
to the propriety of the resolution before the Con-
ference. I think there are many things that
would disqualify 2 man for holding the office of
Bishop that do not amount to’ ‘immorality. Sup-
pose Bishop Hedding should come out and declare
that it was a sin to hold slaves under any circum-
stances. This would identify him with the ultra
party, and I would vote for his retiring, because
it would disqualify him for his work as Superin-
tendent over the whole Church. I will suppose
another case. Let one of our Bishops be unmar-
ried, and go into the work, and marry a free col-
ored woman, would it not, in the sense of the
whole community, disqualify him for his office?
And yet it would not be an act of immorality.
And it is on this principle that I say Bishop An-
drew has disqualified himself by connecting him-
self with slavery, because he cannot acceptably
exercise his duties as a general officer of the
Church.

Now the doctrine of expediency has been re-
ferred to. Let me give you one item of expe-
diency that the Apostle Paul practiced: “If meat
make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh
while the world standeth, lest I make my brother
to offend;” and if Bishop Andrew had. practiced
M. E. Church, South. 203

that kind of expediency we should not° have had
the present difficulty. But his connection with
slavery was “against his will!” I will acknowl-
edge that, in the first-case, he had no agency; but
will any one avow that he was not a free agent
when he connected himself with this lady? No
one will avow that. He therefore acted impru-
dently. As was shown by the brother who opened
this case, there is a marked difference between an
Elder, a Deacon, and a Bishop. The office and
work of a Bishop are of a general character, not
confined to any particular place; and when he
disqualifies himself from exercising his office for
the good of the whole Church, he disqualifies
himself from holding that office. With regard to
our Southern brethren, I hold them to be entitled
to all the offices of the ministry, and never will I
perform any act that will go to deprive them-of
their rights, and never will I perform an act that
will go to abridge the privileges of the abolition-
ists.. I never did believe, nor do I now believe,
that holding slaves under all circumstances is a
sin. Others believe that, and sincerely, and every
one knows how we boldly contended against such
a conclusion in the New York Conference. We
acted then in the integrity of our hearts, and as
we believed would be for the good of the Church,
and the preservation of its union. I wish, sir, to
concentrate all my remarks on this one point, that
204 Organization of the

any thing that would disqualify a man for the
office of Bishop is fit ground for the action of this
General Conference; and I say, to declare that
every man who holds a slave sins in so doing,
would be a disqualification; and so also, that to
enter upon the possession of slaves under the pe-
culiar circumstances would unfit a man for the
high office of a General Superintendent of the
Methodist Episcopal Church. We do not touch
the moral character of Bishop Andrew at all. We
do not wish to do it. We say that he has acted
imprudently, and that we think it necessary in
view thereof that he should resign his office as a
Bishop. But while we thus press this matter, we
no less fervently pray that the great Head of the
Church may overrule all our deliberations and de-
cisions for the promotion of his glory and the good
of a lost world.

At the close of the speech delivered by Dr.
Bangs, explanations of a personal character, in
reference to the proposed nomination of Dr. Capers
for the Episcopal office in 1832, were made, in
which Drs. Capers, Durbin, and Winans, and
Messrs. Finley and Davis took part.
M. E. Church, South. 205

CHAPTER III.

Resolution of James B. Finley—Speech of Dr. Olin—
Speech of Benjamin M. Drake—Speech of George F.
Pierce—Speech of Jesse T. Peck—Speech of Bishop An-
drew—Bishop Soule addresses the Conference—Speech of
Dr. Capers—Address from the Bishops—The adoption
of Mr. Finley’s Resolution.

In the previous chapter we have seen the offi-
cial character of Bishop Andrew arrested by the
General Conference, and have noticed the efforts
made to remove him from the Episcopal office, on
the mere plea of expediency.

The resolution offered by Mr. Collins, instruct-
ing the Committee on Episcopacy to inquire into
the facts of Bishop Andrew’s connection with
slavery, and report to the Conference, was sub-
mitted on the 20th of May. On the 21st the
committee presented their report, and, immedi-
ately upon its reading, Mr. Collins “moved that
the report be laid on the table, to be taken up to-
morrow as the special order of the day.” On the
following day, the 22d of the month, Mr. Griffith
206 Organization of the

offered a resolution “affectionately” requesting
Bishop Andrew to resign the Episcopal office.

On the preamble and resolution of Mr. Griffith,
speeches were delivered by several of the most
eminent men in the North; to which, however,
Southern delegates replied in no unmistakable
terms. The speeches of Drs. Winans and Pierce,
to say nothing of those delivered by Stringfield
and Crowder, had, for a time, arrested the- tide
that threatened to sweep every thing before it,
and impressed upon the minds of the General Con-
ference the conviction that even fanaticism could
invent no plausible excuse for the adoption of the
preamble and resolution offered by Mr. Griffith.

Dr. Bangs was one of the most popular and in-
fluential men in the body from the North, and his
speech, the last delivered on the resolution, failed
to make any impression in its favor.

Under these circumstances it was the policy of
the Northern members to apparently change their
base of operations. They abandoned the pream-
ble and resolution that had been discussed for
nearly two days, and substituted it by the fol-
lowing, offered by James B. Finley, from Ohio:

i Whereas, the Discipline of our Church forbids
the doing any thing calculated to destroy our itiner-
ant general superintendency ; and, whereas, Bishop
Andrew has become connected with slavery by
M. LE. Church, South. 207

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 super-
intendent, 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.

(Signed) J. B. Fintey,
J. M. Trimstz.”

While the phraseology of the original preamble
and resolution and that of the substitute materially
differ, yet in their legitimate result they were the
same. Neither of them charged the Bishop with
the violation of any law of the Church, yet each
proposed his virtual deposition from the Episcopal
office.

Mr. Finley accompanied his resolution with a
few general remarks, after which Dr. Olin said:

I give to the substitute offered by the venera-
ble brother from Ohio a decided preference over
the original resolution. I feel strong objections
to that resolution, and no less to the preamble.
I am not prepared to say that the Discipline of
the Methodist Episcopal Church contains, or is
meant to contain, any provision against the election
208 Organization of the

of a slaveholding Bishop, nor do I believe that
any such inference is fairly deducible from it. I
must hesitate, therefore, to avow such a doctrine.
I may not affirm directly, or by any implication,
that the Discipline is averse to the election of a
slaveholder to that office. Now, it seems to me
that this idea is conveyed when it is said that .
such an election, or that the holding of slaves by
a Bishop, is contrary to the “settled policy and
usage” of the Church. Since the organization of
the federal government on its present basis, the
office of President has been occupied during thirty-
five years by citizens of Virginia, and forty-three
by slaveholders, while that high honor has been
enjoyed only twelve years by Northern statesmen.
Would it be a proper use of language to say that it
is the “settled policy and usage” of our country,
that the office of President should be, for the most
part, confined to Southern men? “Usage” car-
ries, to some extent, at least, the idea of common
law and acknowledged right or privilege. In this
sense it is obviously inapplicable to the case in
hand. We have hitherto had no slaveholder for
Bishop, not that we have a law against it, but be-
cause the non-slaveholding candidates have always
received a majority of the votes. The majority
will always be able to judge of what the interests
or sentiments of the whole Church from time to
time may demand, and such a declaration as that
M. EF. Church, South. 209

in the preamble is uncalled for, as well as not
strictly true. The facts alleged as the ground of
the resolution, if true, are at least disputable, as
we have the best possible proof in the discussions
and explanations to which we have just listened.
They are not matters of record, or history, or gen-
eral notoriety, and they are not adapted to be the
basis of our solemn decision in a case of such
grave importance.

I do not like the issue to which that resolution
sought to lead us. I do not wish, by any act or
vote of mine, to say or insinuate that Bishop An-
drew is not a most desirable man for the Episco-
pacy. Undoubtedly, under the pressure of our
difficulties, had he voluntarily come forward and
done what the Conference, by that resolution, ask
him to do, it might have been the best way to re-
lieve us from the embarrassment. At least some
may think so. But I doubt the propriety of ask-
ing him to do, under the constraining influence of
our vote, what, if done at all, ought to be done
voluntarily; for it might thus be understood that
even if he were free from this embarrassment, we
still should not prefer to have him for a Bishop.

I look upon this question after all, not as a
legal, but as a great practical question; and my
views are quite disembarrassed from constitutional
scruples or difficulties. We came to this General
Conference from the North, South, East, and West,
210 Organization of the

with the best dispositions in all parties to harmonize
as well as we might, and to make the least of our
differences. There were few symptoms of discon-
tent or disaffection, and it was generally thought
that we should now make a satisfactory settlement
of our difficulties, and go home more harmonious
than ever in feeling and action. JI had good rea-
son for coming to this conclusion. I knew, or
thought I knew, the feelings of my brethren in
the North and East, and I had enjoyed a pretty
free correspondence and intercourse with brethren
of the South; and I am sure we all came up to
this Conference with the best purposes and the
best hopes. I was ill, and did not reach the Con-
ference at the commencement, and it was not until
I had taken my seat on this floor, and heard of
the difficulties which surrounded us, that my mind
was robbed of these hopes. I was stunned and
overwhelmed with the tidings, and in ten minutes
made up my mind that our embarrassments were
stupendous, if not insuperable. I have since made
diligent inquiries from brethren as to the-actual
condition and sentiments of the Northern Churches,
and what would be the results there, if things re-
main as they are. I have, for the most part, re-
frained from going to the men who have taken
part in the controversies that have agitated us
hitherto, because I thought their testimony, in a
case of this sort, might not perhaps be so much
M. E. Church, South. 211

relied upon; but I have addressed my inquiries to
men whom I know to be opponents of the aboli-
tion movement; and they concur in believing that
this is precisely the state of things in which they
most fear to return home to their flocks—and they
declare, with one consent, that the difficulty is
unmanageable and overwhelming. I hope it will
turn out in the end that their fears outrun the re-
ality. But, I confess, I know not where to look
for testimony in this matter, but to the accredited,
and venerable, and discreet representatives of the
various Conferences; and I repeat, that, forming
my conclusions on this ground, our most prudent
men do regard our present condition as pregnant
with danger, and as threatening manifold disasters
and disaffections throughout the Methodist Epis-
copal Church; and, after making what allowance
we can for any local or partial view, I am still
compelled to regard the evil as a great and por-
tentous one. It addresses itself to us as the only
tribunal having the legitimate authority to act in
the premises.

The calamity has come without warning. The
intelligence has fallen down upon us like a thun-
der-bolt from a serene sky; but we must grapple
with the difficulties. It is for this General Con-
ference alone to dispose of them in some way. It
must be remembered, however, that this Confer-
ence is limited in its action by constitutional re-
212 Organization of the

strictions, which it may not transcend for the re-
moval of the most ruinous evil. I can conceive
of questions coming up here, so beset with legal
and constitutional embarrassments, that this Gen-
eral Conference could only weep over them, and
give such counsel as it might judge proper. If
there ever was a question beset with great practi-
cal difficulties, surely it is that under which we
now groan; it is so hedged about and filled with
evils, which this Conference cannot hope to. pre-
vent or cure. Yet our powers are so great as to
allow us to make some provision against them, and
to some extent, at least, meet the wants of the
Church in this great emergency. We may do
much, and we may make many arrangements in
regard to the Episcopacy; but our powers are still
limited and restricted in two things. We cannot
do away with the Episcopacy; we cannot infringe
upon its character as a general superintendency.
Within these limits, it seems to me, that we have
large powers—plenary powers for carrying out
through the Episcopacy the general purposes of
the Conference and the Church. We may almost
do what we will, avoiding to come in conflict with
the General Rules, and the rights of individuals.
Unquestionably the Conference cannot touch the
ministerial rights of any one of its members or
officers. I believe we are all prepared to recog-
nize the right of Southern brethren to hold slaves
M. E. Church, South. 213

under the provisions of the Discipline. We shall
acknowledge and guarantee the entire of the priv-
ileges and immunities of all parties in the Church.
I here declare, that if a remedy should be pro-
posed that would trench on the constitutional
claims of Southern ministers, I would not, to save
the Church from any possible calamity, violate
this great charter of our rights. I am glad of
the opportunity of saying that no man, who is a
Methodist, and deserves a place among us, can
call in question here any rights secured by our
charter. I do not say that he may not be a very
honest, or a very pious man, who doubts the com-
patibility of slaveholding, on the conditions of the
Discipline, with the ministerial office; but in this
he is not a Methodist. He may be a very good
man, but a very bad Methodist; and if such a
man doubts if the Church will reform, or is too im-
patient of delay, let him, as I would in his place,
do as our friends in New England did last year,
go to some other Church, or set up one for him-
self.

Not only is holding slaves, on the conditions
and under the restrictions of the Discipline, no
disqualification for the ministerial office; but I
will go a little farther, and say that slaveholding
is not constitutionally a forfeiture of a man’s right,
if he may be said to have one, to the office of a
Bishop. The Church, spread out through all the
214 Organization of the

land, will always determine for itself what are
disqualifications and what are not, and it has a
perfect right to determine whether slaveholding,
or abolitionism, or any other fact, shall be taken
into consideration in its elections.

These are my principles. I have never doubted
with regard to them. I will add, that I can never
give a vote which does violence to my sentiments
in regard to the religious aspect of the subject.
I here declare that, if I ever saw the graces of
the Christian ministry displayed, or its virtues de-
veloped, it has been among slaveholders. I wish
here to divest myself of what, to some, may seem
an advantage that does not belong to me. I will
not conceal—I avow that I was a slaveholder, and
a minister at the South, and I never dreamed that
my right to the ministry was questionable, or that
in the sight of God I was less fitted to preach the
gospel on that account. And if the state of my
health had not driven me away from that region,
I should probably have been a slaveholder to this
day. In this day of reform, and manifold sugges-
tions, I go farther, and say, that if by a vote of
this General Conference, you might call in ques-
tion the right of our Southern brethren to the min-
istry, and make their claim to the sacred office de-
pendent on their giving immediate freedom to
their slaves, I do not think that that would be a
blessing to the slaves, or to the Church. I do
M. E. Church, South. 215

not believe the slave fares worse for having a
Christian master, and I think the preachers may
have more of public confidence on our present plan.
I know these opinions may, by some, be regarded
as unsound, and I make them not because they
have any special value or novelty, but because I
profess to speak my sentiments freely.

With regard to the particular case before us, I
feel constrained to make one or two remarks. If
ever there was a man worthy to fill the Episcopal
office by his disinterestedness, his love of the
Church, his ardent, melting sympathy for all the
interests of humanity, but, above all, for his un-
compromising and unreserved advocacy of the in-
terest of the slave—if these are qualifications for
the office of a Bishop, then James O. Andrew is
preéminently fitted to hold that office. I know
him well. He was the friend of my youth, and
although by his experience and his position fitted
to be a father, yet he made me a brother, and no
man has more fully shared my sympathies, or more
intimately known my heart, for these twenty years.
His house has been my home; on his bed have I
lain in sickness, and he, with his sainted wife now
in heaven, has been my comforter and nurse. No
question under heaven could have presented itself
so painfully oppressive to my feelings as the one
now before us. If I had a hundred votes, and
Bishop Andrew were not pressed by the difficul-
216 Organization of the

ties which now rest upon him, without any wrong
intention on his part I am sure, he is the man to
whom I would give them all. I know no man
who has been so bold an advocate for the interests
of the slaves; and when I have been constrained
to refrain from saying what perhaps I should have
said, I have heard him at camp-meetings, and on
other public occasions, call fearlessly on masters
to see to the spiritual and temporal interests of
their slaves, as a high Christian duty. Excepting
one honored brother, whose name will hereafter be
recorded as one of the greatest benefactors of the
African race, I know of no man who has done so
much for the slave as Bishop Andrew. I know,
sir, Iam not speaking to the question, but I am
stating facts—facts which I am sure will lead
brethren to act with caution and tenderness in this
business.

It will be readily inferred, from what I have
said, that if we cannot act without calling in ques-
tion the rights of the Southern brethren, we had
better, in my opinion, not act all, for I believe it
would be better to submit to the greatest calami-
ties than infringe upon our own constitution. Yet
it seems to me that we are not shut up to such a
disastrous course, and that we may so dispose of
this case as to escape both these difficulties. We
cannot punish. I would not vote for any resolution
that would even censure; and yet, with the powers
M. E. Church, South. 217

that confessedly belong to the General Conference,
I trust some measure may be adopted that may
greatly palliate and diminish, if it cannot wholly
avert, the dangers that threaten us. The substitute
now proposed I regard as such a measure. In it
this General Conference expresses its wish and will
that, under existing circumstances—meaning, by
that word, not merely the fact that Bishop An-
drew has become a slaveholder, but the state of
the Church, the sentiments that prevail—the ex-
citement, and the deep feeling of the people on
the subject—feeling, it may be, which disqualifies
them for calm, dispassionate views in the premises
—that, under these circumstances, it is the wish
and will of the brethren of this Conference that
Bishop Andrew, against whom we bring no charge,
on whose fair character we fix no reproach, should,
for the present, refrain from the exercise of his
Episcopal functions. This resolution proposes no
punishment. It does not censure. It expresses
no opinion of the Bishop’s conduct. It only seeks
to avert disastrous results by the exercise of the
conservative, of the self-preserving, powers of this
Conference.

If the brethren who occupy the extreme posi-
tions in this question seek rather to allay than ex-
cite the fever of feeling, we will yet hope—even
allow me to believe—that these difficulties may be

removed. I had even thought, if we could so
10
218 Organization of the

manage this question as to avoid casting any re-
flections upon the South; if we could hold Bishop
Andrew without an impeachment; if we are care-
ful to save that point as far as possible, I have
confidence that, whenever he believes he can do it
without compromising a principle which I know,
in the present situation, he feels himself called
upon to represent and maintain—if we could save
that point, and hold up a shield over the interests
dearer to him and others than his own life even—
I do not allow myself to despair that, as soon as
circumstances will allow, and difficulties, now in-
superable, shall be removed, he will be ready to
make great sacrifices for the general good of the
Church. I have no right to say so. I only give
it as my conviction, that if he can possibly relieve
us of our embarrassment he will. My confidence
in the man is such, that I have no hesitation in
asserting this. I look at this proposition not asa
punishment of any grade or sort. It is as if you
were to say to Dr. Peck, your editor, who, for
some cause, might have become unpopular, “ You
are our agent. Circumstances, at present, are un-
favorable to your exercising your functions; and
in the exertion of our just discretion in the case,
and because your want of favor with the public
interferes with the success of that department
over which you are placed, we withdraw you; for
the present, from this particular field of duty. - We
M. E. Church, South. 219

do not censure you, and we cordially retain you
in the ranks of our ministry.” Iam not learned
in constitutional law. It is, perhaps, for want of
larger experience that this is the only view I am
able to take of this subject; at which, however, I
think I have arrived by a course, I will not say
of sound argument, but by natural and easy ap-
proaches. With my constitutional views, I am
allowed to inquire in this case which course will
do the least harm? And I believe that which is
proposed by this substitute to be a constitutional
measure, dishonorable to none, unjust to none. As
such I should wish it to go forth, with the solemn
declaration of this General Conference that we do
not design it as a punishment, or a censure; that
it is, in our apprehension, only a prudential and
expedient measure, calculated to avert the great
evils that threaten us.

I know the difficulties of the South. I know
the excitement that is likely to prevail among the
people there. Yet, allowing our worst fears all to
be realized, the South will have this advantage
over us—the Southern Conferences are likely, in
any event, to harmonize among themselves—they
will form a compact body. In our Northern Con-
ferences this will be impossible in the present state
of things. -They cannot bring their whole people
to act together on one common ground; stations
and circuits will be so weakened and broken as
 

220 Organization of the

in many instances to be unable to sustain their
ministry. I speak on this point in accordance with
the conviction of my own judgment, after having
traveled three thousand miles through the New
England and New York Conferences, that if some
action is not had on this subject calculated to hold
out hope—to impart a measure of satisfaction to
the people—there will be distractions and divis-
ions ruinous to souls, and fatal to the permanent
interests of the Church.

I feel, sir, that if this great difficulty shall re-
sult in separation from our Southern brethren, we
lose not our right hand merely, but our very heart’s
blood. Over such an event I should not cease to
pour out my prayers and tears as over a grievous
and unmitigated calamity. It was in that part of
our Zion that God, for Christ’s sake, converted my
soul. There I first entered on the Christian min-
istry. From thence come the beloved, honored
brethren who now surround me, with whom and
among whom I have labored, and suffered, and re-
joiced, and seen the doings of the right hand of
the Son of God. If the day shall come when we
must be separated by lines of demarkation, I shall
yet think often of those beyond with the kindest,
warmest feelings of an honest Christian heart.
But, sir, I will yet trust that we-may put far off
this evil day. If we can pass such a measure as
will shield our principles from all infringement—
M. E. Church, South. 221

if we can send forth such a measure as will neither
injure nor justly offend the South—as shall neither
censure nor dishonor Bishop Andrew, and yet
shall meet the pressing wants of the Church; and,
above all, if Almighty God shall be pleased to
help by pouring out his Spirit upon us, we may
yet avoid the rock on which we now seem but
too likely to split.

I will add one word in reference to what has
been so often repeated about the abolition excite-
ment in New England and the North. I have
never thought it a good thing to introduce agita-
tion into the Church. I have thought it better,
so far as practicable, to keep clear from all contro-
versies, and, for myself, have felt bound to do so.
I have been kept from taking any part in the great
abolition controversy by the arrangements of Prov-
idence; but I must declare that the interests, the
purposes, the measures, which seem at this time
to unite the North in sympathy, have not origi-
nated with abolitionists, usually so called. The
concern felt on the subject now before us is much
more general. The New York Conference, of
which I was made a member when abroad, and
without my knowledge, was never an abolition
Conference. Some of my friends, members of that
Conference, and themselves decided abolitionists,
have complained to me of the action of that body
in suspending some young preachers for their ac-
222 Organization of the

tivity in the abolition cause, as flagrantly tyran-
nical and unjust. The Troy Conference is not an
abolition Conference, and never was. These, and
other Northern Conferences, have firmly opposed
the abolition movement. They have been as a
wall of brass to turn back the strong tide, and pro-
tect the Southern rights and interests.

Ministers and laymen, in some portions of our
work, have agitated this question in their Confer-
ences and Churches, but generally Northern Meth-
odists have been opposed to such action. They
commonly regard slavery a great evil, though not
necessarily a sin; but it would be a great mistake
to conclude that the antislavery sentiments of
Methodists have been wholly, or mostly, the fruits
of Church-action or agitation. Brethren fall into
a great error in imagining that all the abolition in-
fluences abroad in the Northern Churches origi-
nated in them. On the contrary, our common
newspapers, the contests and canvassings con-
nected with our elections, our periodical literature,
are rife with abolitionism on other and broader
grounds. It is, perhaps, to be regretted that this
embarrassing subject is so much discussed at the
North; but it is certainly true that Methodists
here derive their sentiments chiefly from such
sources as I have intimated—from their reading,
and from intercourse with their fellow-citizens.
They are abolitionists naturally and inevitably,
M. LE. Church, South. 223

because they breathe the atmosphere of this coun-
try—because the sea is open to free adventure,
and their freighted ships bring home periodicals
and books from all the countries of Europe, tinged,
or, if any prefer, infected with these views. The
difficulties of this question, then, do not arise
chiefly from its relation to abolitionism im the
Church, but from the general tone of feeling
among the people of the non-slaveholding States.
I trust, sir, that in pronouncing our sentiments on
the subject under consideration, we shall not re-
gard ourselves as acting for distinct and antagonist
interests—that we shall not inquire whether we
may inflict an injury upon one portion of the
Church regarded by itself, and no doubt justly, as
ever mindful of its constitutional obligations, to
save another-portion from evils engendered in the
hot-beds of abolitionism—a part of the Church
ever ready to trample down constitutional barriers,
and remove old landmarks and securities.

That is not the true issue; for in four-fifths of
the antislavery Conferences, to say nothing of the
rest, there have been no agitations, no seeds of
abolition sown, but the people have formed their
opinions as citizens of the country; and notwith-
standing these convictions on the subject, they
have as tender a regard for the interests of the
Church as any of their brethren. As a member
of the New York Conference, I do most earnestly
224 Organization of the

protest against any declaration which shall go forth
before the world, Affirming or intimating that the
New York Conference, as such, has at all meddled
in this matter, except to prevent apprehended evil,
and to perform what it regarded as a pressing,
though painful, duty to the whole Church. I will
only say farther, that in our action in the case of
a venerable and beloved Bishop, we have trouble
and sorrow enough heaped upon us—Pelion on
Ossa—afflictions on affliction. Let not, then, this
drop of bitterness be wrung into the cup which
we are compelled to drink. Let it not be said
that we are groaning under the pressure of diffi-
culties arising from an agitation which we have
got up and cannot now allay. Let it not be said
that we are now suffering the consequences of our
unconstitutional meddling’ with the subject of
slavery—that the seed sown by us has sprung up,
and we are now reaping the harvest. As a dele-
gate from the New York Conference, I sympathize
with its honor; and I declare, before heaven and
earth, that it is no fault of that body of ministers
that we are now pressed down with such a bur-
den of difficulties. Sir, there are men in this Con-
ference who have suffered much in vindicating
what they regarded the rights of the South. My
venerable friend on the right has, on this account,
received great and unmerited obloquy. Another
excellent minister on my left, and many more not
M. E. Church, South. . 225

now in my eye, have been reproached as pro-
slavery men and men-stealers for the part they
thought it their duty to take against the ultra
views and measures that threatened to prevail a
few years ago. ~ They have deserved well—I think
they have merited the thanks—of Southern breth-
ren for their earnest efforts to shield them and
their rights against encroachments on the consti-
tution of the Church. Sir, I have done. I do
not pretend to have succeeded in making a consti-
tutional argument. My object was to do my duty
in stating, as well as I was able, the just and
proper grounds of the proposed resolution.

In this remarkable speech, Dr. Olin conceded
every thing demanded by the South, with the ex-
ception that violent hands should not be laid on
Bishop Andrew. He admitted “that the Disci-
pline of the Methodist Episcopal Church contains”
no “ provision against the election of a slavehold-
ing Bishop;” “that Bishop Andrew was a most
desirable man for the Episcopacy;” “that the Gen-
eral Conference was limited in its action by con-
stitutional restrictions which it may not transcend ;”
“that if a remedy should be proposed that would
trench on the constitutional claims of Southern
ministers,” he “would not, to save the Church
from any possible calamity, violate this great char-

ter of our rights.” He farther says, “ Not only
10*
226 Organization of the

is holding slaves, on the conditions and under the
restrictions of the Discipline, no disqualification
for the ministerial office,” and adds, “but I will go
a little farther, and say that slaveholding is not
constitutionally a forfeiture of a man’s right, if he
may be said to have one, to the office of a Bishop.”
His speech abounds in expressions and sentiments
similar to these.

With the expression of these views, however,
Dr. Olin avowed his purpose to support the reso-
lution of Mr. Finley, and offers as his reason for:
so doing that, “in it this General Conference ex-
presses its wish and will that under existing cir-
cumstances—meaning by that word, not merely
the fact that Bishop Andrew has become a slave-
holder, but the state of the Church, the sentiments
that prevail, the excitement and the deep feeling
on the subject—feeling, it may be, which disquali-
fies them for calm, dispassionate views in the
premises—that under these circumstances it is the
wish and will of the brethren of this Conference
that Bishop Andrew, against whom we bring no
charge, on whose fair character we fix no reproach,
should, for the present, refrain from the exercise
of his Episcopal functions.”

We are unable to reconcile the two opposite
positions taken by Dr. Olin in this speech, unless
it be that he entertained the belief that the divis-
ion of the Church was an absolute necessity for
M. E. Church, South. 227

the success of Methodism in the North as well as
the South.

Dr. Olin was followed by Benjamin M. Drake,
from Mississippi.

He thought that in no vital principle did the
substitute differ from the original resolution, though
in the preamble he thought it preferable. But he
could not see the difference between the Bishop’s
resigning his office, and refraining from the exer-
cise of its functions, especially as his cireum-
stances are such as he has no control over, and
therefore the request contemplated would be equiv-
alent to a request to resign, to all intents and pur-
poses.

To say that we can deprive a Bishop of his
office, and yet not censure him—to say that we
can depose, and yet leave his Episcopal robe un-
stained—is, to my mind, absurd in the extreme.
Sir, we cannot pass this resolution without hang-
ing up Bishop Andrew before the whole Church
as having committed a sin either against Method-
ism or against Christ! And against which has he
sinned? Now, according to the exposition of the
last. speaker, he has not sinned against Methodism,
and I have yet to hear that he has sinned against
Christianity ; so that, according to their own show-
ing, they cannot punish him without committing
an extrajudicial act. Nor can this course be pur-
sued, and the union of the Church be preserved.
228 Organization of the

Bishop Andrew must be continued in the Episco-
pal office, or you certainly divide the Church.

Henry Slicer, of the Baltimore, Phineas Cran-
dall, of the New England, and William D. Cass,
of the New Hampshire Conference, were the next
speakers, all of them supporting the substitute.

The speech of Mr. Cass was distinguished for
nothing, except its extreme ultraism and bitter-
ness.

On Friday morning, May the 24th, Bishop
Waugh was in the chair, and the religious services
were conducted by Samuel Dunwody, of South
Carolina. The preliminary business being fin-
ished, the order of the day (Finley’s substitute)
was resumed. Mr. Cass had not finished his
speech the day previous, when the hour of ad-
journment arrived, and his right to the floor was
consequently recognized by the chair. He, how-
ever, waived his privilege, remarking that “he had
been interrupted in his speech the day before, and
his rights had been trampled upon, and he had no
farther speech to make.”

George F. Pierce, of Georgia, followed Mr.
Cass. Mr. Pierce was a young man, being only
thirty-three years of age. This was the second
General Conference of which he had been a mem-
ber. Before Mr. Pierce was born his father was
a Methodist preacher. Brought up in the lap of
Methodism, in the sixteenth year of his age he
M. E. Church, South. 229

was soundly converted to God. He loved its doc-
trines and was devoted to its usages. Divinely
called to the work of the Christian ministry, before
he was twenty years old he entered the itinerant
ranks, and pledged to the prosecution of his high
and holy calling his youth, his manhood, and his
declining years. His first field of labor was the
Alcovie Circuit, with Jeremiah Freeman in charge.
His second appointment was to the city of Au-
gusta, as the colleague of James O. Andrew.*
Having in the early part of his ministry been
associated with Mr. Andrew, he had formed an
attachment for him that had increased with each
successive year. His popularity in the Georgia
Conference had placed him in the front ranks of
his delegation, while his brilliant talents, his burn-
ing eloquence, his spotless character, his uncom-
promising devotion to the Church, and his fervent
zeal, which knew no bounds save his wasting
strength, rendered him a universal favorite in the
South. Asa preacher, if he had a peer, he had ne
superior, in the Church. His appearance on the
floor of the General Conference, in opposition to the
substitute of Mr. Finley, was expected. He said:

I speak from convictions of duty, and not be-
cause I expect to change the opinion of any man

 

*It was during this year that Mr. Andrew was elected to
the Episcopal office.
230 Organization of the

before us; nor would I presume, as some have
done, that there will be in the course of my re-
marks the evolutions of any new light. I do not,
sir, feel a great deal of solicitude about the issue
of the case, and my solicitude is diminished, be-
cause I regard the great question of unity as set-
tled by the previous action of the Conference in
another case; but I desire to animadvert very
briefly on one or two points, as connected with
the manner in which the question has been con-
sidered.

The brethren who have spoken on the other
side of the question, many of them, have adopted
a trick of oratory—a sort of legerdemain in de-
bate, which is this: they state abstract propositions
of right, which no man will pretend to deny, and
then deduce elaborate argumentations, and make
them to bear on conclusions with which these con-
clusions have no more to do than the law of the
tides has with the polar star. But the design is
very obvious. The idea is more readily adopted
—the conviction more readily embraced —be-
cause it falls in with preconceived opinions and
long-established prejudices. There is no logical
connection between the premises and the argu-
ments which have been advanced here. Things
are put in apposition which have no relation to
each other. Sir, there has been, in every speech
which has been made on the other side of the
M. E. Church, South. 231

question, a false issue attempted. Whatever may
be affirmed of expediency, and the disqualification
of Bishop Andrew for the office of General Su-
perintendent, in view of circumstances over which
it is declared brethren have no control, it is not to
be forgotten or disguised that this is not an ab-
stract, but a practical question, that it involves
the constitutional rights and equality of privileges
belonging to Southern ministers. It is a practical
question, too, which cannot be set off from its
connection with the past, and its bearings on the
future. It is part and parcel of a system, slowly
developed, it may be, yet obvious in its designs
and unwearied in its operation, to deprive South-
ern ministers of their rights, and to disfranchise
the whole Southern Church. You cannot take the
question out of its relations. It cannot be made
to stand as brethren have tried to make it stand,
isolated and alone. If there had been no memo-
rials on your table, praying for the establishment
of a law of proscription—if there had not been
declared, over and over again, a settled purpose,
if not in unequivocal terms, yet in unequivocal
acts, to work out the destruction of this evil, and
free the Episcopacy and the Church itself from
this evil, the question before us would be different
in its aspects, and the action of the South in re-
gard to it might be modified accordingly. I beg
this Conference to consider this question in the
232 Organization of the

light.of its connection with the previous action in
the case of the appeal from the Baltimore Confer-
ence. Sir, the preposterous doctrine was asserted
in that Conference, that its purposes and usages
are paramount to the law of the land, and the
doctrine of that Conference has been affirmed
here. Sir, the action of this Conference on the
subject has brought the whole Methodist Episco-
pal Church into a position of antagonism to the
laws of the’ land. I consider such action not only
an outrage on the common justice of the case, but
decidedly revolutionary in its movements, and
destined to affect, unless repealed, the character
of the Conference and all the ramifications of the
Church. What is the position? The ground was
taken there and here—the Church, the Bible, the
Discipline, and the laws of the land to the con-
trary notwithstanding—that we have a right to
make a man’s membership depend upon the condi-
tion of his doing a thing which, as a citizen of the
State, he has no power or right to do. The act
which is proposed in the resolution is part and
parcel with the same affair. When Bishop An-
drew has been invited to resign or desist from the
exercise of his official functions, or is impeached,
or deposed, it ought to be, and can be, considered
as neither more nor less than collateral in its de-
signs and effects with the action of the Conference
in the case to which I have referred. This is a
M. E. Church, South. 233

practical question, make what disclaimers you
please, or any amount of them. The common
sense of the country will consider it as an infrac-
tion of the constitutional, or, if you please, the dis-
ciplinary rights of the Southern brethren, however
it may be considered by those in the so-styled more
favored and less-incumbered portions of the Union.

The argument for expediency I am compelled
to believe has not half the force assigned to it. I
think I speak advisedly when I say, that what-
ever effect the passing of Bishop Andrew’s char-
acter without censure, or laying the whole busi-
ness on the table, might have with the New
England Conferences, I am not prepared to be-
lieve that any considerable damage would be
done in the middle Conferences. I do not be-
lieve the people of New York would decline to
receive Bishop Andrew for their Bishop. I do
not believe that he would be objected to either in
New Jersey, Pennsylvania, or Maryland, or in
any of the Conferences of the Western States.
The difficulties are with the New Englanders...
They are making all this difficulty, and may be
described, in the language of Paul, as “intermed-
dlers with other men’s matters.” I will allow, as
it has been affirmed, again and again, that there
may be secession, Societies broken up, Confer-
ences split, and immense damage of this sort be
done within the New England Conferences; but
234 Organization of the

what then? I speak soberly, advisedly, when I
say, I prefer that all New England should secede,
or be set off, and have her share of the Church
property. J infinitely prefer that they should go
rather than that this General Conference should
proceed to make this ruthless invasion upon the
Connectional union, and the integrity of the
Church. Let New England go, with all my heart.
She has been for the last twenty years a thorn in
the flesh—a messenger of Satan to buffet us! let
her go, and joy go with her, for peace will stay
behind. The Southern Church has nothing to
fear, and she has nothing to ask on this subject.
As far as we are concerned, sir, the greatest bless-
ing that could befall us would be a division of this
union. There, sir, at the South, we dwell in
peace, and the good Shepherd watches the flock
and guards us from all harm. There are no jar-
ring strings, no discordant sounds, no incarnate
emissaries of the evil one going about seeking
whom they may devour, but there we “lie down
in green pastures, beside the still waters.” If we
had not the spirit of the Master, if we were selfish
enough to enjoy the bounty of our heritage, we
would court division, pray for it, demand it.

But, sir, I will present one view of this ques-
tion that has not been touched upon. Set off the
South, and what is the consequence? Do you get
rid of embarrassment, discord, division, strife?
M. E. Church, South. 235

No, sir; you multiply divisions. There will be
secessions in the Northern Conferences, even if
Bishop Andrew is deposed or resigns. Prominent
men will abandon your Church. I venture to pre-
dict that when the day of division comes—and
come I believe it will, from the present aspect of
the case—that in ten years from this day, and
perhaps less, there will not be one shred of the
distinctive peculiarities of Methodism left within
the Conferences that depart from us. The venera-
ble man who now presides over the Northern
Conferences may live out his time as a Bishop,
but he will never have a successor. Episcopacy
will be given up, Presiding-eldership will be given
up, the itinerancy will come to an end, and Con-
eregationalism will be the order of the day. The
people will choose their own pastors, and preach-
ers will be standing about the ecclesiastical mar-
ket-places, and when men shall ask, “Why stand
ye here all the day idle?” the answer will be,
“Because no man hath hired us.” We have unity
and peace, and seek it because of its effects on
the Connection, and I believe, to-day, that if the
New England Conferences were to secede, the rest
of us would have peace. There would be religion
enough left among us to live together as a band of
Christian brothers.

Sir, I object to the substitute for another rea-
son. I would have preferred the original resolu-
236 Organization of the

tion. The substitute presents a most anomalous
view of the whole subject. Suppose that view is
adopted; what is it? What do you do with the
Bishop? You cannot put him on a circuit or
station: he is a Bishop in duress—a Bishop in
prison-bounds—an anomaly—a fifth wheel in the
machine of Methodism—doomed to live on the
Book Concern, while no provision is made for his
rendering the Church any service—if this resolu-
tion is adopted.

I promise not to detain you long, for others are
wishing to speak; but I felt that I could not go
home satisfied unless I took this occasion to make
a few remarks. If I did not know there were
others better qualified to defend this subject, I
would trespass on the patience of the Conference
by the hour. I tell you that unless Bishop An-
drew is passed free of censure of any kind, the
days of Methodist unity are numbered. What
do brethren mean when they come and eulogize
him as they have done? It has been avowed that
he is a blameless man, pure and spotless—that he
has high executive talents—that he is one of the
most efficient administrators of law—that he is
as well qualified for this as any of the worthy
men who occupy the Episcopal bench. Yet in the
face of this, is the Conference to come out and
say, that on the question of expediency he shall
resign, refrain from the exercise of his office, or
M. E. Church, South. 237

be deposed? What mean these eulogies? Are
brethren in earnest? Is the Conference heaping
garlands on the victim they destine for slaughter?
Has it come to this, that a large body of sober
and reverend men, in the face of their own ac-
knowledgment of blamelessness, are going to inflict
one of the severest penalties on an innocent, un-
offending man? Why will you blight with a
breath the bliss of this worthy man? Will you
offer him up to appease that foul spirit of the pit
which has sent its pestilential breath to blast and
destroy the Church? You have unchained the
lion, and now that he is raging and roaring for his
prey, you select a venerable Bishop—one of the
ablest and best of the whole college—to immolate
him on the altar of this Juggernaut of perdition!
Think you we will sit here and see this go on
without lifting a voice or making a protest against
it? Are we to see this noble man sacrificed for
the sake of New England? God forbid it! God
forbid, I say, and speak it from the depths of my
heart.

Brethren may say what they please, disclaim
what they please, eulogize as they will, they can-
not make any thing of this but the deprivation of
a constitutional right. In the case of the appeal
from the Baltimore Conference many voted, not
because they believed the Conference had done
right, but for extraneous reasons; but in this

6
238 Organization of the

question the vote goes out upon its naked merits,
irrespective of any disclaimer or acknowledg-
ments that may be made in reference to the
Bishop’s rights, character, or capacity. But to
come to the point—Has he a right to hold slaves
under the Discipline of the Church? If he has,
I adjure you not to lay violent hands upon him.
If he has, I ask brethren to pause and say, if in
the prospect of facing a scrutinizing world, they
can go out with the stinging recollection in their
hearts that they have sacrificed a man worthy to
preside over them, to the restless demands of an
arrogant and insatiable spirit of abolition? Ido
hope brethren will pause before they drive us to
the fearful catastrophe now earnestly to be depre-
cated, but inevitable if they proceed.

Dr. Longstreet, of Mississippi, followed Mr.
Pierce on the same side, with a speech remarkable
for its force and clearness.

Jesse T. Peck, of the Troy Conference, spoke
in reply to Mr. Pierce:

The only occasion upon which I have thought
it consistent for me ‘to appear in this discussion, is
in reply to the distinguished member from the
Georgia Conference, Rev. G. F. Pierce. The near
agreement in our ages is my apology. The rev-
erend gentleman commenced his remarks by

e
M. E. Church, South. 239

stating that this controversy, as it appeared to
him, had been conducted upon the part of. the
- North by attempted feats of legerdemain. I un-
derstood him to say that we had done this by
stating selfevident propositions, and then forth-
with deducing conclusions from them that had no
more connection with them than the law of the
tides had with the polar star. If he had taken
the trouble to point out a few instances of this
kind of defect, I could have given it the attention
due to reasoning; but as he was not pleased to do
so, and as he is an educated man, he will doubtless
be satisfied by my giving him credit for a piece
of beautiful declamation. He says we have made
a false issue in this discussion. And what is it?
Why, that we have discussed it as an individual
matter, confined in its application to Bishop An-
drew himself; whereas it was in truth a great prac-
tical question, bearing upon the whole South. We
admit it, Mr. President; it is a great practical
question, bearing not upon the South merely, but
upon the whole Church. We utterly disclaim the
limitation of the question to any man. We take
up the issue exactly as he has laid it down. It
is upon the assertion and action of a great princi-
ple of immense practical bearing that we predicate
our arguments. It is, verily, the brother may be
well assured, a matter of great practical importance
to us, and to the Church, whether we have a slave-
240 Organization of the

holding Bishop or not. Here, then, I have no
* contention with him.

But, Mr. President, the brother alarmed me!
He made a declaration which was to me utterly
surprising! He says the great question of unity
is decided! (Mr. P. explained. ‘ Prospectively
decided!”)  Prospectively decided? to be sure!
Did any one suppose it had been decided retrospec-
tively? Division, then, in his mind is really in-
evitable! Surely, sir, J had not thought so. And
I am happy to say I know many brethren, North
and South, much more distinguished for age and
experience than either of us, who do not think
so. The division of our excellent Church decided!
The unity of our common Methodism destroyed!
May Heaven forbid it! Ido not believe it, sir.
The strong bonds that hold us together, I trust,
are not sundered! But, he says, the Baltimore
appeal case virtually decided it. I do not so un-
derstand it. There were, it is true, several points
of analogy between the case of Mr. Harding and
that of Bishop Andrew. But the action contem-
plated in the case of the Bishop is widely differ-
ent from that had in the case of Mr. Harding.
In that case we did nothing more than to affirm
the decision of the Baltimore Conference; and in
that act say, that we would not allow slavery to
be crowded on her, after she had nobly declared she
would not have it. The appellant stood suspended
M. E. Church, South. 241

from his ministerial functions. But was any such
thing intended in the case of Bishop Andrew?
Did the resolution affirm any such thing? Cer-
tainly not. It merely proposed that he should
desist from the exercise of the Episcopal office
until he should free himself from the embarrass-
ment of slavery. The cases then were widely
different. Brethren were undoubtedly premature
in asserting that the decision of the Conference
in the Baltimore appeal case had prospectively
determined the division of the Church! Indeed,
the gentleman himself seemed to have doubts
about it, when he came to consider a little; for
after he had progressed in his argument so far as
to consider the influence of the proposed action
in the case of the Bishop, he declared, “ Pass that
resolution, and the great question of Methodistic
unity is decided forever.” Indeed! Then it re-
mains to be decided, the Baltimore appeal case to
the contrary notwithstanding! I thank the brother
for that. My judgment in the case cannot be al-
together groundless, since it derives support from
his own declarations. Be assured, sir, I greatly
rejoice in this.

But the respected brother from Georgia insists
that the ultimate design is the disfranchisement
of all Southern ministers! Zhe ultimate design!
Really, sir, this is extraordinary sagacity! If he

had been content to show us what was the legiti-
11
242 Oaganization of the

mate result of our action, we must have corrected
him, or submitted. But since he has thought
proper to declare our design, we must demur.
We have serious doubts as to the competency of
any man to tell our designs, unless we avow them.
Disfranchise all Southern preachers! I disclaim
it, sir. In the name of the Troy Conference,
which I have the honor in part to represent, and
in the name of the whole North, I disclaim it. I
appeal to you, brethren, every man of you, to
know whether you have ever known of any such
idea at the North. I am fully sustained; no such
thought can be in existence. But the argument
by which my respected friend sustained this ex-
traordinary proposition was not fully developed.
If he will have the goodness to give his attention
to see whether I do it correctly, I will state it for
him. The North are not willing that a slaveholder
should be a Bishop; ergo, they are determined
that no slaveholder shall be a minister! If the
brethren of the South have any argument to sup-
port this doctrine of universal proscription, this
certainly must be it. But is it legitimate? Is
there any connection between the antecedent and
the consequent—the premises and the conclusion?
I cannot see it. The Discipline prescribes the
circumstances under which a traveling preacher
may hold slaves. But does it say any thing of
circumstances under which a Bishop may hold
M. E. Church, South. 243

slaves? Certainly not; for the condition of a
Bishop is widely different from that of any ordi-
nary traveling preacher. He is really and truly
the pastor of the whole Church, and slavery will
not allow him to be so.

Brethren talk of the infringement of their con-
stitutional rights. But what do they mean by it?
That any man has a constitutional right to be a
Bishop! Such a right as he had to graduation
from a probationer to Elder’s orders! Has any
man living such a constitutional right to be elected
to the Episcopal office, or remain in it after he is
elected? I never heard of such a thing. Sir,
there is no constitution in the case. Neither the
Discipline nor the General Conference has ever
said what special qualifications would, or would
not, be required in a Bishop. It is true, sir, that
the Discipline nowhere says that a slaveholder
shall not be a Bishop, and I should be sorry if it
did. It has nowhere said that a rum-drinker shall
not be a Bishop; and yet, surely, no man would
say that this was any the less an utter disqualifi-
cation for the office, because it was not so declared
in the Discipline. (I beg, Mr. President, you
will not understand me to compare slavery with
rum-drinking. I mean no such thing. I introduce
it only for purposes of illustration.) No, sir,
there are no constitutional rights invaded. As to
whether a man will do for a Bishop, or not, the
244 Organization of the

General Conference is the sole judge, either as to
his election, or retention; and their judgment will
have its true expression in the ballot-box. A
constitutional right to be a Bishop! You might
as well talk of a constitutional right to be an Ed-
itor, or a Book Agent, or any other General Con-
ference officer.

But the brother from Georgia says this measure
will not save us from secessions. We shall have
secessions in New England! We shall have them
everywhere! What can be done to satisfy New
England? Sir, as the name of Wew England
struck my ear, I felt a thrill of the most intense
interest. But, the reverend gentleman proceeded,
“they are busy-bodies in other men’s matters! A
thorn in the flesh! A messenger of Satan to
buffet us!” And, alluding (as I understood him
to do) to a certain movement in New England,
and certain principles upon which that movement
was based, he called it “the foul spirit of the pit!
The Juggernaut of perdition!” etc. Upon this
language, Mr. President, I may not remark! I
must, of necessity, leave it without animadver-
sion! But with the utmost respect, this dear
brother will excuse me for saying I much prefer
the terms used by some of his highly-respected as-
sociates. I like the chaste and beautiful language
of the sweet-spirited and eloquent Mr. Crowder,
and the dignified and forcible style of the rever-
M. E. Church, South. 245

end gentleman who last preceded me. I must say,
Mr. President, I deprecate the use of such lan-
guage in a controversy of such solemn importance
—a controversy invested with more elements of
moral grandeur than any which has -engaged the
attention of the American people for half a cen-
tury! I hope the brother will not use it again,
and certainly not on the floor of this General
Conference. But my friend from the Georgia
Conference says, “Let_New England go! I wish
in my heart she would secede! And joy go with
her, for I am sure she will leave peace behind
‘ her!” Let New England go? I cannot forget
this exclamation. It vibrates in my soul in tones
of grating discord. Why, sir, what is New Eng-
land that we should part with her with so little
reluctance? New England! ‘The land of the
Pilgrims—the land of many of our venerated
fathers in Israel—the land of Broadhead, of
Merritt, of the revered man [pointing to George
Pickering] who sits by my side, and a host of
worthies whom we have delighted to honor as the
bulwarks of Methodism in its early days of primi-
tive purity and peril. Let New England go?
No, sir, we cannot part so easily with the pioneer
land of the devoted and sainted Jesse Lee!

But, Mr. President, our brethren of the South
utterly mistake the truth in this matter! Why,
sir, they can’t get half way to New England in
246 Organization of the

this war! They must wade through numbers and
forces of which they never dreamed! They must
encounter us in the center, whose opposition to
slavery is uncompromising. And Baltimore (honor
to her self-sacrificing devotion to the cause of hu-
manity!) will be a formidable obstacle in the way
of their advance. But if they ever should subdue
us, and reach the land of the Pilgrims, rest assured,
sir, they would find there a wall of brass which
would remain forever impregnable to the assaults
of the slave-power! We are happy that New
England is with us to.a man in this fearful con-
flict—that the united West, and North, and East,
form an insuperable barrier to the advance of
slavery! O sir, I fear me much our brethren at
the South are deceiving themselves in this matter.
This has never been a question of principle between
us and New England. We have always been
agreed in fundamental antislavery sentiments, and
I am the more careful to allude to this, because, so
far as I remember, it is a distinction that has not
been made in this discussion. It has been purely
a question of measures between us. In this, it is
true, we have differed, but in opposition of princi-
ple to slavery, North, East, and West, we always
have been, and I trust shall ever remain, insepara-
bly united. We resist as one man the advance-
ment of slavery, which, not content to be confined
within its own geographical limits, threatens to
M. E. Church, South. 247

roll its dark waves over the North. J¢ claims the
right to give us a slaveholding pastor! a slaveholding
Bishop! Do not then be surprised that we are so
perfectly united in asking to be set back exactly
where we were a few months ago. QO, sir, that our
brethren could roll the wheels of time back to where
they were last November, when we had, compara-
tively, no difficulties to encounter! But this they
cannot do. What less, however, can they expect
us to ask, than that they should do what is equiva-
lent to it—give us our Bishop without the slaves?

My brother, sir, judges about as poorly of
the principles and condition of the North as I
should of the South; for I have never been to the
South. Iam sorry I have not. I should like to
strike the hands of these dear, very dear brethren,
whom I have learned to love upon this Conference
floor, as I never should have supposed possible, at
their own dear homes. I should like to go there,
sir, if I might, my antislavery principles to the
contrary notwithstanding! [Cries of several
voices, “Come on—come on—we shall be glad to
see you.”] Let New England go! No, sir, never.
And here I beg to say, that our Southern brethren
can’t induce us to use such language in reference
to them. They can’t provoke us to it, sir. Let
the South go! No, sir, we love them too well.
We love them for their goodness, and respect them
for their talents. We love them for their stern,
248 Organization of the

unbending regard to principle and adherence to
Discipline. We love them for their conservatism,
ultra sometimes though it. may be, we love them
for it. Let the South go! No, sir, we cannot
part with our brethren, whom we love so well.
True, we cannot compromise principle, to save
them—nor to save the East. But we need not.
They are too magnanimous to demand it. We
shall live and die with them—we will not let them
go unless they tear themselves from our arms be-
dewed with the tears of affection. Never! no,
never !

On the next day, May 25, Mr. Peck, resuming
the discussion, said:

Mr. President: It would have been agreeable
to me if I might have concluded my remarks yes-
terday, without interruption; but the arrival of
the hour for adjournment compelled me to leave
the argument in an unfinished state. Much as I
regretted this, however, I should have preferred,
if my friends would have allowed me to do it, to
have left it there. To this, it is due to myself to
state, I could not get their consent. In obedience,
therefore, to a judgment to which I always feel
bound to defer, I resume the floor to-day.

“Ten years from now, and our glorious General
Superintendency, and our time-honored itinerancy
will have expired!” So says the prophecy of yes-
terday! Only ten years will suffice to pull down
M. E. Church, South. 249

this beautiful edifice, and annihilate the very ma-
terials of which it is constructed! The strong
confidence it has inspired in its votaries—the ar-
dent attachment of those whom it has saved—the
profound admiration which its almost supernatural
wisdom and adaptation have gathered around it,
from all classes of people—all these cannot save it.
It is doomed, and fall it must! Only ten years,
and the last flickerings of this once brilliant and
glorious light will have died away in the socket!
But, Mr. President, as Iam but a child in these
matters, and so have seen but little of the secret
workings of small, but mighty agencies, upon the
basis of this noble fabric, I am curious to inquire
into the cause of this prophetic fate. What is it
that is to work such devastation and ruin to the
fair heritage of God? Let this reason stand out
in bold relief, stripped of all its drapery, where
we can see it just as itis. This is certainly no
time for rhetorical ornament. At a time when
interests so vast and solemn are pending upon the
action of a single principle, let that principle be
exhibited naked and unadorned, that we may not
mistake it. What, then, is the cause that is des-
tined to effect the overthrow of institutions vener-
able with age, and potent for the amelioration of the
condition of man? Why, sir, if Ihave not mistaken
it, it is simply this: Z'his General Conference ts likely
to say that a slaveholder cannot be a Bishop.
11*
250 Organization of the

Look at it, undisguised, and alone, as it is.
Examine it carefully, in all its dimensions and
bearings, and see if you can discover any ade-
quacy in the cause to produce the predicted effect.
Can it be that the Almighty arm will be withdrawn
from beneath us for this? That we shall be aban-
doned to destruction for the want of a union be- °
tween slavery and the Episcopate? What ele-
ment of our purity and primitive simplicity will
it destroy? What adaptation of our noble system
will it annihilate, to have no slaveholding Bishop?
Will God, indeed, be angry with us, and leave us
to ourselves for this? Is this the foundation-stone
of our spiritual edifice, that it must inevitably
crumble to ruins when it is removed? If God
should forsake us, we are ruined—irrecoverably
ruined! But, sir, J cannot believe he will. He has
not in former times, and we have been without a
slaveholding Bishop for sixty years! The grand
itinerant plan of publishing salvation to the per-
ishing world has gone on gloriously, dispensing its
invaluable blessings to almost every land, not-
withstanding. Now, I know, sir, if I were rea-
soning of a@ man, and were to say, He has not
forsaken us, therefore he wil not, that I should be
justly chargeable with the legerdemain in debate
which my friend from the South so gracefully as-
cribed to us yesterday. But, sir, when I say it
of the unchangeable God, he did not, therefore, in
M. EL. Church, South. 251

the same circumstances, he will not, I feel myself
fully sustained. No, Mr. President, I cannot
adopt this dismal prophecy. It has too much of
the air of romance about it. If nothing more is
justly laid to our charge than the simple refusal
to depart from our former state in this matter, I
verily believe the everlasting arms will be under-
neath us still. The wheels of the itinerancy will
continue to roll on, and the ages of the future will
yet exhibit the now undeveloped power of this
wonderful plan.

I will now, sir, ask attention to what appears to
me to be a very singular, and yet very frequent,
exclamation from Southern brethren, and I do
it not in the spirit of casuistry. They, almost to
aman, call upon us zo pause! “Pause!” say they,
“we beseech you; pause before you advance an-
other step!” Indeed, sir; this is a very extraor-
dinary prayer under the circumstances. My
neighbor moves his fence, and barn, and house on
my farm! and when I begin to insist upon his
taking them off, he cries out, Pause! “Pause,
sir, I beseech you! Your measures will be pro-
ductive of immense injury to yourself and me!”
What, sir, should I say to him in this case? Why,
sir, can any one doubt that I should instantly
reply, This is the wrong time to call for a pause?
The time to pause was when you began to make
your arrangements to move your buildings on my
252 Organization of the

land! hen, if some kind friend had called out
to you, in the language you address to me, it would
have been exceedingly relevant. But now, from
the nature of the case, there can be no pause, until
you retrace your steps, and relieve my premises
of your effects. Need I make the application of
this homely illustration? I am sure I need not.
It is obvious and necessary. But I shall not fail
to look well to the only hinge upon which this
argument turns. The great question is, Who has
been the aggressor in this case? (I use the term
in no bad sense.) Upon whom rests the respon-
sibility of the present fearful issue? Does it rest
upon us of the North? Does it rest upon this
General Conference? I verily believe it does not,
sir. When, or where, may I be allowed to ask,
have we infringed the rights of our brethren at the
South? It is true, we have laid our petitions at
your feet. But in this have we done any thing
more than to exercise the natural rights of free-
men? The citizens of this free republic must be
allowed to petition, and we must receive their pe-
titions respectfully expressed, and give them the
consideration which their nature and importance
demand. Petitions have been presented to you,
sir; petitions, to be sure, which, from the state of
the public mind in which they originated, have
required careful analysis; but many of which have
deserved a most patient hearing. But, sir, what
M. E. Church, South. 2538

have we done? What single decision of this body,
since this excitement commenced, has not been
adapted with singular care to the interests of the
South? Nay, sir, we have cautiously guarded
the South, in every official act that looked toward
this exciting subject. We are aware that it is a
perfect system of sensitiveness—a complete bun-
dle of nerves! And we have always acted with
this fact fully in view. Indeed, sir, I am honestly
in doubt—and I know my brethren of the South
will allow me to express it—whether we have not
more reason to ask the pardon of the Hast than
of the South in this matter. This I will not,-
however, attempt to decide, because it is unneces-
sary. But, sir, the question returns, Whence is
the origin of our present difficulty? Does it come
from the North? Certainly not. Have we orig-
inated this innovation? I need not answer. I
ask, then, most respectfully, When was the proper
time to pause? This question brings us no relief.
It ts too late, and I will not repeat it. But surely
the call to pause will be suspended by our breth-
ren of the South, until they have put themselves
right in regard to the question at issue. If it be
_ inquired where the blame is located, since we will
not allow it to rest upon the North, I answer I
locate it nowhere. Indeed, I will not talk of blame.
It can do no good. The question is one of remedy.
We cannat fear that we shall be blamed for press-
254 Organization of the

ing the question of remedy. It ought not to be
asked of us, that we should be satisfied to have
the Bishop of the whole territory trammeled by
peculiar and local institutions. It is not necessary
for the good of that part of the work where slavery
exists, and it must, from the very nature of the
case, be ruinous to that large part of it where it
does not exist.

But, Mr. President, I am exceedingly thankful
that there is one common ground to the South and
North. Not, perhaps, to the whole South, but to
many of its most distinguished men—I refer to
the magnanimous concessions which have been
freely made upon the election of a slaveholding
Bishop. It has been conceded, with a frankness
and Christian candor which deserve, and shall re-
ceive, our highest praise—not, indeed, that no
slaveholder should be eligible to the Episcopal
office—for our Southern brethren talk with pre-
cision on this difficult question—but that it was
inexpedient to attempt an election on any such
ground. In the very style of considerate North-
ern men, it has been urged in the South that the
Bishop is the officer of the whole Church, and it
is not advisable to trammel him with a local diffi-
culty. It must not be a question of North and
South, but simply who is the best man for the
office. Where is the man of God upon whom it
will be safe to devolve such a fearful responsi-
M. E. Church, South. 255

bility? This is noble. But will our Southern
brethren abide by this principle? I am aware
that I have no right to charge the necessary
correlate of an acknowledged sentiment upon an
opponent, unless he avow it. But it is my right
to show what is implied in that sentiment, and
what results necessarily follow it. And I will ask
brethren, What objection have we to the election
of a slaveholding Bishop? None, surely, but
what is based upon the idea of having one. Why
do we of the North object to electing a man in
‘such circumstances to the Episcopacy? For no
other reason in the world than that we have no use
for him when he is elected. He cannot be a true
Methodist itinerating Superintendent. No, sir,
it is not to electing, but to having one, that insupera-
ble objections arise in the minds of Northern men.
Need I apply these remarks? Can brethren fail
to see that nothing more is needed to relieve us
from our present difficulties than the legitimate
action of the principle universally claimed by the
North, and so extensively conceded by the South?
No, sir, let it be distinctly borne in mind that the
vote upon the present resolution must depend upon
precisely the same‘principles as the vote for an
election. We grant, it is a much more delicate
matter; so much so, indeed, as to almost appall the
stoutest heart; but the principle is the same, and
the action must be the same.
256 Organization of the

But, Mr. President, there is, I must’ say, one
attitude taken by my brethren from the South to
which I find it difficult to reconcile my feelings.
It is, I confess, a matter of extreme delicacy for
me to allude to it; and yet I know I shall have
the indulgence of Southern brethren. If I had
ever had any doubts in regard to Southern mag-
nanimity, they would have been removed by what
has taken place on the floor of this Conference
during this discussion. They do not condemn a
man for speaking his sentiments out fully. No,
sir. I doubt not, that, if I were to appeal to my
reverend friend on my right, (Dr. Smith, of Vir-
ginia,) to whose eloquent remarks we have so fre-
quently listened with the most intense interest, he
would say, “It is cowardly and mean for a man to
shrink from an honest and frank avowal of his
opinions and feelings upon a question of such
magnitude as this for fear of difference with those
who had other opinions and other feelings.” I
will therefore mention that subject, with which
-my mind has been burdened and afflicted for sev-
eral days. Connected with the arguments of our
Southern brethren, there is constantly held up
before us the idea (I will not call it a menace) of
a division of the Church, if we persist in our course!
Do not brethren know that, by this course, they
throw a fearful difficulty in the way of a free and
safe discussion of this subject? an impediment
M. E. Church; South. 257

almost sufficient to drive us from the discussion
altogether? I know our dear brethren cannot
fail, upon the mere mention of this matter, to think
of the results which may follow to the interests
of their flocks and charges in the South. I know
very well that they do not feel themselves at the
disposal of good men and Methodists in this thing
—that it is in the power of wicked men to break
up their missions and destroy their usefulness—
and they are not at liberty to be reckless of re-
sults. But can they not waive their discussion, at
least for the present? It is enough, sir, to chill
the blood of any man to look these difficulties in
the face as they are presented by Southern breth-
ren. It is aémost enough (but I thank God not
quite enough) to make us forego a great principle
to relieve ourselves from the responsibility of de-
ciding the case. I will therefore ask it as a favor
to Methodism, that this great and intimidating
question of Division may be allowed to sleep a few
days, till we can talk over the great principle at
issue. I dread, I confess to you, sir, to approach
the question with such a fearful contingency sus-
pended, 7m terrorem, over my head. Division of
the Methodist Episcopal Church! It frightens
me to think of it. I am compelled, however re-
luctantly, to admit in my own mind, that there is
fearful truth in the hazard to our nation, to which
brethren refer, in such a result. Divide the Church
258 Organization of the

just as we are rallying our energies to prosecute
with united power our missionary labors! just as
we are about to combine our strength for the pur-
pose of efficient action in the great cause of Chris-
tian education! Divide the Church at a time
when most of all the great principle of Method-
istic unity is indispensable to form an insupera-
ble barrier to the advance of Roman Catholicism,
which threatens to throw its withering blight over
all that is fair and lovely in this glorious republic,
and menaces the very frame-work of our political
freedom! O no, sir; it is here that I would call
upon brethren to pause. Again, I entreat, hush
this frightful dream to sleep, that we may calmly
study, undisturbed, the merits of the question be-
tween us.

I must, Mr. President, notice one thing more
in the remarks of my honored friend from Geor-
gia, and then I must leave him; for then I think
he will admit that I have given him at least a re-
spectful degree of attention. He anxiously in-
quires what we are to do with Bishop Andrew, if
he should resign his Episcopal office. He would
be a fifth wheel in Methodism, an anomaly, and an
inoperative member! This, Mr. President, is really
strange. An Elder in the Church of God—a man
of unbounded popularity—a man of ardent piety
and gushing sympathies—with the whole South
before him, in every part of which he would be
M. E. Church, South. 259

hailed with acclamations of joy—and where more
work will crowd upon him than any two men can
have strength to perform—nothing to do! A fifth
wheel in the ministry! it must be impossible, sir,
for a man to be serious, in such an attempt to
create a difficulty. But, sir, we have been asked,
what do we mean by our eulogies of Bishop An-
drew! The tributes paid to his character have
been described in the beautiful rhetoric of my
friend from Georgia, as garlands decking a victim
for the sacrifice. Teally, sir, this is very extra-
ordinary language. Is it strange, that as we feel
ourselves compelled to lay our hands upon his
official relation, we should think it proper to dis-
claim any attack upon his Christian and ministerial
character? Is it not due to him, and due to us, to
disavow any want of respect or affection for the
man? Indeed, sir, our brethren have mistaken
the bearing of our allusions to Bishop Andrew’s
worth altogether. This is one of the most trying
aspects of the case. "Tis for this very reason that
we deserve the respect and sympathy of both
friends and foes. How, I ask, could we more
clearly exhibit our regard for a great principle
than to refuse to allow even the exalted virtues
and worthy character of Bishop Andrew to divert
our attention from it? Sir, this is what in every
thing else the world calls moral heroism, and we
deserve respect, and not reproaches for it. It is
260 Organization of the

the worth of the man, as well as the exalted char-
acter of his office, that overwhelms us with grief,
at every step of our progress. It is a mournful
task, and if at any time during this discussion
there has been manifested, anywhere, a disposi-
tion to levity, I regret it, sir; it pains me beyond
measure to see it, when our business is character-
ized by the deep-toned sorrow of funeral solemni-
ties!

I cannot here avoid an allusion to a remark of
yesterday, from the Rev. Mr. Longstreet, though I
adhere to my purpose not to reply to his speech.
He found the community of New York charged with
sympathy for Bishop Andrew. It is undoubtedly
true, sir, and I should be grieved if it were other-
wise. The generous sympathies of noble hearts
in our crowded gallery, and rear, and throughout
this community, find a most sincere and hearty
response upon this Conference-floor. I would not
for the world dry up this crystal fountain or di-
vert it from its legitimate channels. The rever-
end gentleman is correct in regard to the facts,
but he has misinterpreted them. He has imag-
ined that these genuine pulsations of nature rise
up in rebellion to ws, and yield to the demands
for a slaveholding Bishop. No, sir, he is greatly
mistaken. I beg to assure him that a greater
error could scarcely have been committed. These
are the sympathies upon which we cast ourselves
M. E. Church, South. 261

for support, in this trying crisis. It is this that
secures to us, as well as to our afflicted Bishop,
the prayers and the tears of the noblest men and
women of which human nature can boast.

Perhaps I ought to apologize, sir, for the warmth
and emotion with which I defended New England
yesterday. It was the land of my sire. There
repose the ashes of my fathers back to the earliest
generations of this land. It is the birthplace of
at least two of our venerable Bishops, who, thanks
to Providence, are with us to-day—of our honored
Olin, and venerated Bangs. It was the land of
the sainted Fisk. And never, while our moral
heavens are radiant with the glories of this lumi-
nary of the Church, shall the fair fame of the
land that gave him birth be aspersed. Peace to
his ashes, and honor to lis memory! Fle was a good
and a great man—-one of New England’s proudest
sons. Let me here only say, sir, that from this
same land are rising up now a host of strong men,
who already stand forth as champions in the fear-
ful conflict with sin. How can I speak otherwise
than warmly when reproach has been heaped upon
a land that has furnished so many of the brightest
luminaries of the Church?

Sir, I have done. I thank you, and I thank
the Conference, for the indulgence I have received.
Sure I am that I have not deserved it, and I feel
my obligations of gratitude the more. I embarked
262 Organization of the

in this noble “ship” when I was but a boy, and I
cannot be persuaded to leave her. I like her form,
her structure, and her machinery well. I like her
passengers, her officers, and her crew. I like the
sea on which she sails, and the port to which she
is bound. True, she is exposed to storms, and
may sometimes stagger beneath the beating tem-
pest, and reel amid the engulfing floods. And at
such a time be not surprised if the signals of dis-
tress be heard—the life-boat launched, and num-
bers, forsaking her in fright, commit themselves to
the merciless waves. Other craft, of sprightly
form and splendid sails, may heave alongside, and
invite us aboard. But, sir, do not be in haste to
go. Look well to her ballast and build, for I fear
she is too crank and loose to survive the perils of
this frightful sea. No, sir, let us stay on board
the “old ship.” Sunshine or storm, darkness or
light, I see her riding safely on the waves—tri-
umphing over every danger—and gallantly bearing
her precious burden toward the haven of rest. In
every gale that shall strike her, as she is proudly
careering amid the raging elements, my voice shall
be heard above the noise of wind and wave, in the
words of the dying Lawrence, “Don’t GIvE UP THE
sip!”

Mr. Pierce rose to explain, and said he should
be very glad to reply at length; but as he spoke
M. EF. Church, South. 263

by courtesy and not by right, he would confine
himself to explanation. He observed he was ex-
ceedingly startled at the proposition of Brother
Peck, that a Bishop had no constitutional right to
be a Bishop. He had always understood that
when a man is legitimately appointed to office, he
has a constitutional right to that office for the
whole term—that he cannot be ejected unless he
has been in fault. As to the perhaps unfortunate
expression which he yesterday made use of toward
New England, some apology might be due; but,
on the whole, he would not regret it, as it had
afforded his honored brother such a theater for
displaying his peculiar talents. He intended to
say that for New England to secede, or to be set
off with a pro rata division of the property, would
be a light evil compared with the immolation of
Bishop Andrew on the altar of a pseudo expe-
diency. He meant that the loss of New England
was as the dust of the balance compared with
such a gross, palpable, unjust, outrageous violation
of law. He intended to convey the idea that the
great Head of the Church did not require the sac-
rifice of an innocent and unoffending man for the
sake of maintaining peace and order in the Church.
The Church required no such sacrifice for her
unity or her character. As to the unkind epithets
to which the brother had referred, he wished to
be understood, not as having applied them to New
264 Organization of the

England, but to abolition and its misguided abet-
tors. If all New England was engaged in this
unhallowed war on the South and on Southern
institutions, then he meant New England; if not,
he would be understood otherwise. He intended
no disrespect or injustice to New England. He
would cheerfully acknowledge, because he honestly
believed, in accordance with the views so elo-
quently expressed by the brother who had pre-
ceded him, that there were many noble sons from
New England. As the last speaker had referred
to Bishop Soule, he (Mr. Pierce) hoped he should
be permitted to say that, from his father’s repre-
sentations, he had learned to admire him before
he saw him, and acquaintance had ripened admira-
tion into reverence. There was an honored repre-
sentative of the New York Conference, (Dr. Olin,)
who favored the Conference with his opinions
a few days ago, whom he had loved from his early
boyhood, and never more than now; and he took
this occasion to assure him, that whatever might be
his vote on this trying question, he would still re-
main enshrined in the fervid affections of a heart too
warm to speak prudently on an occasion like this.

And, sir, I recognize you (addressing Mr. Peck)
as a man with a soul in your body, warm, gener-
ous, glowing. J admire your spirit—your genius.
The beauty of the bud gives promise of a luscious
blossom—the early beams foretell a glorious noon.
M. E. Church, South. 265

And now, sir, though my speech shocked your
nerves so badly, I trust my explanation will not
ruffle a hair upon the crown of your head. [A
burst of laughter, Mr. Peck being very bald.]

The discussion was continued until the 30th of
May, during which time, in addition to the
speeches already referred to, Messrs. Hamline, of _
Ohio, Comfort, of Oneida, Collins, of Baltimore,
Finley, of Ohio, Cartwright, of Illinois, and Dr.
Durbin, of Philadelphia, addressed the Conference
in favor of the substitute, and Messrs. Green, of
Tennessee, Smith, of Virginia, Stamper, of Illi-
nois, Sehon, of Ohio, Dunwody and Dr. Capers,
of South Carolina, against it.

The speeches delivered on this occasion have

seldom been equaled, and never surpassed, in the
Senate-chamber of the United States.
i A leading journal published in New York said:
“It is but simple justice to say that the Confer-
ence was worthy of eminent distinction on the
score of talent. Its members were all clergymen,
and therefore public speakers by profession, and
many of them were gifted with the highest order
of eloquence. Perhaps no body of men in the
country ever contained in a higher degree those
peculiar talents which give strength and force to
oral discussion.”

However pleasant it might be to record the
12
266 Organization of the

speeches delivered on the occasion, to do so would
swell this volume far beyond our design.

During the discussion, on the 28th day of May,
and immediately following the speech of Mr. Col-
lins, Bishop Andrew addressed the Conference.
He said:

Mr. President :—I have been on trial now for a
week, and feel desirous that it should come to a
close. Fora week I have been compelled to listen
to discussions of which I have been the subject,
and I must have been more than man, or less than
man, not to have felt. Sir, I have felt, and felt
deeply. Iam not offended with any man. The
most of those who have spoken against me, have
treated me respectfully, and have been as mild as
I had any right to expect. I cherish no unkind
feelings toward any. Ido not quarrel with my
abolition brethren, though I believe their opinions
to be erroneous and mischievous. Yet, so long as
they conduct themselves courteously toward me,
I have no quarrel with them. It is due that some
remarks should be made by me, before the Confer-
ence come to a conclusion upon the question, which
I hope will be speedily done, for I think a week
is long enough for a man to be shot at, and it is
time the discussion should terminate.

As there has been frequent reference to the cir-
cumstances of my election to the Episcopal office,
M. LE. Church, South. 267

it is perhaps proper that I give a brief history of
that matter. A friend of mine, (Brother Hodges,)
now with God, asked me to permit myself to be
put in nomination for that office. I objected—the
office had no charms for me. I was with a Con-
ference that I loved, and that loved me. What
was I to gain to be separated from a happy home
—from a wife and children whom I loved more
than I did my own life? But my friend urged
me; he said my election would, he believed, tend
to promote the peace of the Church, and that he
believed it would be especially important to the
prosperity of Methodism at the South. Finally
I consented, with the hope of failure; but I was
nominated and elected. I was never asked if I
was a slaveholder—no man asked me what were
my principles on the subject—no one dared to ask
of me a pledge in this matter, or it would have
been met as it deserved. Only one man, Brother
Winans, spoke to me on the subject: he said he
could not vote for me because he believed I was
nominated under the impression that I was not a
slaveholder. I told him I had not sought the
nomination, nor did I desire the office, and that
my opinions on the propriety of making non-slave-
holding a test of qualification for the office of
Bishop were entirely in unison with his own. Sir,
I do not believe in this matter of secret will as a
rule of action, either in the revelations of the
268 Organization of the

Bible, or in the prescriptions of the Book of Discip-
line. I believe in the revealed will of God, and in the
written law of the Church as contained in the Book
of Discipline. I took office upon the broad plat-
form of that book, and I believe my case is covered
by it. It was known that I was to reside at the
South; I was elected in view of that very thing, as it
was judged important to the best interests of the
Church that one of the Bishops should reside in
that section of the work, and it was judged I could
be more useful there than elsewhere. Well, what
was I to do then? I was located in a country
where free persons could not be obtained for hire,
and I could not do the work of the family—my
wife could not do it—what was I todo? I was
compelled to hire slaves, and pay their masters for
their hire; but I had to change them every year
—they were bad servants, for they had no inter-
est in me or mine—and I believe it would have
been less sin before God to have bought a servant
who would have taken an interest in me and I in
him; but I did not do so. At length, however, I
came into the possession of slaves; and I am a
slaveholder, (as I have already explained to the
Conference,) and I cannot help myself. It is
known that I have waded through deep sorrows
at the South during the’ last four years; I have
buried the wife of my youth and the mother of
my children, who left me with a family of mother-
M. E. Church, South. 269

less children, who needed a friend and a mother.
I sought atother; (and with this the Conference
has nothing to do;) I found one who, I believed,
would make me a good wife, and a good mother
for my children. I had known her long—my chil-
dren knew and loved her. I sought to make my
home a happy one, and I have done so. Sir, I
have no apology to make. It has been said I did
this thing voluntarily, and with my eyes open. I
did so deliberately and in the fear of God—and
God has blessed our union. I might have avoided
this difficulty by resorting to a trick—by making
over these slaves to my wife before marriage, or
by doing as a friend who has taken ground in favor
of the resolution before you suggested: “ Why,”
said he, “did you not let your wife make over
these negroes to her children, securing to herself
an annuity from them?” Sir, my conscience
would not allow me to do this thing. If I had
done so, and those negroes had passed into the
hands of those who would have treated them un-
kindly, I should have been unhappy. Strange as
it may seem to brethren, I am a slaveholder for
conscience’ sake. I have no doubt that my wife
would, without a moment’s hesitation, consent to
the manumission of those slaves, if I thought
proper to do it. I knowshe would unhesitatingly
consent to any arrangement I might deem it proper
to make on the subject. But how am I to free
270 Organization of the

them? Some of them are old, too old to work
to support themselves, and are only aii expense to
me; and some of them are little children; where
shall I send these? and who will provide for them ?
But, perhaps, I shall be permitted to keep these;
but, then, if the others go, how shall I provide for
these helpless ones? and as to the others, to what
free State shall I send them? and what would be
their condition? Besides, many of them would
not go—they love their mistress, and could not
be induced, under any circumstances, to leave her.
Sir, an aged and respectable minister said to me,
several years ago, when I had stated just such a
case to him, and asked him what he would do,
“T would set them free,” said he, “I’d wash my
hands of them, and if they went to the devil, I’d
be clear of them.” Sir, into such views of relig-
ion or philanthropy my soul cannot enter. I be-
lieve the providence of God has thrown these crea-
tures into my hands, and holds me responsible for
their proper treatment. I have secured them to
my wife by deed of trust since our marriage. The
arrangement was only in accordance with an un-
derstanding existing previous to marriage. These
servants were hers—she had inherited them from
her former husband’s estate—they had been her
only source of support during her widowhood,
and would still be her only dependence if it should
please God to remove me from her. I have noth-
M. EF. Church, South. 271

ing to leave her. I have given my life to the
Church from the days of my youth, (and I am
now fifty,) and although, as I have previously re-
marked, she would consent to any arrangement I
might make, yet I cannot consent to take advan-
tage of her affection for me to induce her to do
what would injure her without at all benefiting
the slaves.

Sir, I did not, for a moment, believe that this
body of grave and reverend ministers would make
this a subject of serious discussion. I thought it
likely that there might be some warm ultra breth-
ren here who would take some exception to my
course, and on that account I did not make the
deed of trust before marriage, lest some should
suppose I designed to dodge the responsibility of
the case. Those who know me must know that I
could not be governed by the mere matter of dol-

‘lars and cents. What can Ido? I have no con-
fession to make—I intend to make none. I stand
upon the broad ground of the Discipline on which
I took office, and if I have done wrong, put me
out. The editor of the Christian Advocate has
prejudged this case. He makes me the scape-
goat of all the difficulties which abolition excite-
ment has gotten up at the North. Jam the only
one to blame, in his opinion, should mischief grow
out of this case. But I repeat, if I have sinned
against the Discipline, I refuse not to die. I have
272 Organization of the

spent my life for the benefit of the slaves. When
Iwas but a boy, I taught a Sunday-school for
slaves, in which I taught a number of them to
read; and from that period till this day I have
devoted my energies to the promotion of their
happiness and salvation; with all my influence
in private, in public, with my tongue, with my
pen, I have assiduously endeavored to promote
their present and eternal happiness. And am
I to be sacrificed by those who have done lit-
tle or nothing for them? It is said I have ren-
dered myself unacceptable to our people. I doubt
this. I have just returned from Philadelphia,
where they knew me to be a slaveholder; yet
they flocked to hear me, and the presence of God
was with us; we had a good, warm, old-fashioned
meeting. J may be unacceptable in New York,
yet from the experience I have had, I doubt even
that. To whom am I unacceptable? Not to the
people of the South—neither masters nor slaves.
Has my connection with slaves rendered me less
acceptable to the colored people of the South—
the very people for whom all this professed sym-
pathy is felt? Does the fact that I am a slave-
holder make me less acceptable among them? Let
those who have labored long among them answer
the question. Sir, I venture to say that in Caro-
lina or Georgia I could to-day get more votes for
the office of Bishop from the colored people, than
M. E. Church, South. 273

any supporter of this resolution, let him avow
himself an emancipator as openly as he pleases.
To the colored people of the South there, and to
their owners—to the entire membership of the
slaveholding Conferences—I would not be unac-
ceptable; but, perhaps, they are no part of “our
people ;” in short, sir, I believe that I should not
be unacceptable to one-half of the Connection ;
but on this question I have nothing to say. Should
the Conference think proper to pass me, there is
plenty of ground where I can labor acceptably and
usefully. The slaveholding Conferences will pre-
sent a field sufficiently large for me, should I live
to the age of Methuselah ; and the Bishops, in ar-
ranging the work, will certainly have discretion
enough not to send me where I would not be re-
ceived; nor would I obtrude myself upon any
Conference, or lay my hands upon the head of any
brother, who would feel himself contaminated by
the touch. However, on this subject I have noth-
ing to say. The Conference can take its course;
but I protest against the proposed action as a vio-
lation of the laws of the Discipline, and an inva-
sion of the rights secured to me by that Book.
Yet let the Conference take the steps they con-
template; I enter no plea for mercy—I make no
appeal for sympathy; indeed, I love those who
sympathize with me, but I do not want it now.

I wish you to act coolly and deliberately, and in
12*
274 Organization of the

the fear of God; but I would rather that the Con-
ference would change the issue, and make the res-
olution to depose the Bishop, and take the ques-
tion at once, for I am tired of it. The country is
becoming agitated upon the subject, and I hope
the Conference will act forthwith on the resolu-
tion.

On the 29th of May, Bishop Soule addressed
the Conference in a very impressive manner, urg-
ing upon the body the importance of calmness.
He said:

I do not know but this may be a favorable mo-
ment for me to offer to the Conference the few re-
marks I desire to make before final action shall be
had on the subject which is now pending before
the Conference. I have had no solicitude with
regard to the period of time when I should offer
these remarks, only that it might be a time of
calmness and reflection. I will indulge the hope
that this is such a time, and therefore avail my-
self of the opportunity. I rise, sir, at this mo-
ment, as I once said before, with all the calmness
which the occasion, I think, requires. But this is
not the calm that precedes the tempest and the
storm; it is not the calmness of indifference; it
cannot be. It is, sir, the calmness of conviction.
It is the calmness of principle. If indeed I could
M. E. Church, South. 275

be persuaded that my very respectable brother
from the Pittsburgh Conference was entirely cor-
rect in his opinion, that all the light which could
be furnished on this subject had been furnished, I
should not rise here. There is a possibility that
the brother may be mistaken. I cannot say that
I should have forborne to rise, though I had been
convinced of the correctness of the judgment of
the respected brother from New England, that
though we should sit here till January next, no
brother would be changed in his vote on this ques-
tion. I say, I do not know that I should have
forborne my observations, though I might have
been convinced of the correctness of this opinion ;
but if no more ight could be produced, any thing
that I could say would be unavailing.

There are periods, sir, in the history of the life
of every man who sustains any important station
in society, who holds any important relations to
it, when his individual character cannot, must not,
be neutralized by the laws of association. Under
this view, in what I shall say to this Conference,
I involve no man in responsibility. My venerable
colleagues are in no way concerned in what I shall
say to this Conference; so that however I may be
involved, they are not involved. The South, on
my right, is not involved. The North, on my
left, is not involved. I stand in this regard alone.
I hope not, indeed, alone in the sentiments that I
276 Organization of the

shall express to the Conference. Brethren have
manifested a solicitude to bring this question to
an issue—to close the debate and come to the vote.
Task brethren if it is not possible, nowithstand-
ing the time which has been employed in this dis-
cussion, notwithstanding the enlarged views which
brethren have expressed on the question before
them—lI ask if it is not possible that action on
the resolution may not yet be premature? So-
ciety, sir, whether civil or religious, has much
more to fear from the passions of its members,
than it has to fear from calm investigation and
sober inquiry. I am not afraid to meet the calm-
ness of deliberation anywhere. I am not afraid
to meet it here; I am not afraid to meet it in the
Annual Conference; I am not afraid to meet it be-
fore the great religious community of which we
are members and ministers. I am not; but I fear
the rage of the passions of men. I fear excite-
ments—ardent excitements, prematurely produced
in society; and I apprehend that if we trace the
history of associations, whether civil or ecclesi-
astical, we shall find that these premature excite-
ments, waking up the rage of passion, have pro-
duced greater calamities than ever were produced
by the calmness of deliberation and the sobriety
of inquiry, however extensive those investigations
may have been. The sound of the trumpet of
alarm may go forth from within these consecrated
M. E. Church, South. 277

walls—the sound may spread itself on the wings
of the wind, or of the whirlwind, over the length
and breadth of these lands; but, sir, when this
sound shall have died away, when the elements
which may have been awakened to boisterous and
tumultuous action, shall subside into the calmness
of inquiry and reason, a voice may return to this
hall, wafted on a counter-breeze; and though the
voice be not heard in the thunder, the earthquake,
or the storm, it may pierce through the veil of our
speculations, and of our theories, and the first
sound will be heard in the inquiry, “What is the
cause?” Well, sir, it will be the province of rea-
son and sobriety to answer. Here it is, sir, spread
out before me, spread out before you, in a, plain,
unsophisticated statement of facts by Bishop An-
drew. I have not heard a brother from the North
—I have not heard a brother from the South—
(and I have listened to hear)—allege that there
were any other facts, that. there were any other
circumstances, having any bearing whatever on
the merits of the case now before you. I take it
for granted, then, that we have the entire facts of
the case before us; and these facts are the cause
of whatever alarm, whatever excitement, may have
spread through our beloved Zion, and over this
continent.

Now, sir, I will beg the indulgence of the Con-
ference while I read an extract from the address
278 Organization of the

of your general superintendents at your last ses-
sion. You will indulge me in this.

“The experience of more than half a century,
since the organization of our ecclesiastical body,
will afford us many important lights and land-
marks, pointing out what is the safest and most
prudent policy to be pursued in our onward course
as regards African slavery in these States, and
especially in our own religious community. This
very interesting period of our history is distin-
guished by several characteristic features, having
a special claim to our consideration at the present
time, particularly in view of the unusual excite-
ment which now prevails on the subject, not only
in the different Christian Churches, but also in
the civil body. And, first, our general rule on
slavery, which forms a part of the constitution of
the Church, has stood from the beginning un-
changed, as testamentary of our sentiments on the
principle of slavery and the slave-trade. And in
this we differ in no respect from the sentiments of
our venerable founder, or from those of the wisest
and most distinguished statesmen and civilians of
our own and other enlightened and Christian coun-
tries. Secondly, in all the enactments of the
Church relating to slavery, a due and respectful
regard has been had to the laws of the States,
never requiring emancipation in contravention of
the civil authority, or where the laws of the States
M. E. Church, South. 279

would not allow the liberated slave to enjoy free-
dom. Thirdly, the simply holding or owning slaves,
without regard to circumstances, has at no period
of the existence of the Church subjected the mas-
ter to excommunication. Fourthly, rules have
been made, from time to time, regulating the sale,
and purchase, and holding of slaves, with refer-
ence to the different laws of the States where
slavery is tolerated; which, upon the experience
of the great difficulties of administering them, and
the unhappy consequences both to masters and
servants, have been as often changed and repealed.
“These important facts, which form prominent
parts of our past history as a Church, may very
properly lead us to inquire for that course of ac-
tion in future which may be best calculated to pre-
serve the peace and unity of the whole body, pro-
mote the greatest happiness of the slave popula-
tion, and advance generally, in the slaveholding
community of our country, the humane and hal-’
lowing influence of our holy religion. We cannot
withhold from you, at this eventful period, the
solemn conviction of our minds, that no new ec-
clesiastical legislation on the subject of slavery at
this time will have a tendency to accomplish these
most desirable objects. And we are fully per-
suaded that, as a body of Christian ministers, we
shall accomplish the greatest good by directing
our individual and united efforts, in the spirit of
280 Organization of the

the first teachers of Christianity, to bring both
master and servant under the sanctifying influence
of the principles of that gospel which teaches the
duties of every relation, and enforces the faithful
discharge of them by the strongest conceivable
motives. Do we aim at the amelioration of the
condition of the slave? How can we so effectu-
ally accomplish this, in our calling as ministers of
the gospel of Christ, as by employing our whole in-
fluence to bring both him and his master to a saving
knowledge of the grace of God, and to a practical
observance of those relative duties so clearly pre-
scribed in the writings of the inspired apostles?
Permit us to add, that although we enter not into
the political contentions of the day, neither inter-
fere with civil legislation nor with the administra-
tion of the laws, we cannot but feel a deep inter-
est in whatever affects the peace, prosperity, and
happiness of our beloved country. The union of
these States, the perpetuity of the bonds of our
national confederation, the reciprocal confidence of
the different members of the great civil compact;
in a word, the well-being of the community of
which we are members, should never cease to lie
near our hearts, and for which we should offer up
our sincere and most ardent prayers to the Al-
mighty Ruler of the universe.

“But can we, as ministers of the gospel, and
servants of a Master ‘whose kingdom is not of
M. E. Church, South. 281

this world, promote these important objects in
any way so truly and permanently as by pursuing
the course just pointed out? Can we, at this
eventful crisis, render a better service to our coun-
try than by laying aside all interference with rela-
tions authorized and established by the civil laws,
and applying ourselves wholly and faithfully to
what specially appertains to our ‘high and holy
calling ;’ to teach and enforce the moral obligations
of the gospel, in application to all the duties grow-
ing out of the different relations in society? By
a diligent devotion to this evangelical employment,
with an humble and steadfast reliance upon the
aid of divine influence, the number of ‘believing
masters’ and servants may be constantly increased,
the kindest sentiments and affections cultivated,
domestic burdens lightened, mutual confidence
cherished, and the peace and happiness of society
be promoted. While, on the other hand, if past
history affords us any correct rules of judgment,
there is much cause to fear that the influence of
our sacred office, if employed in interference with
the relation itself, and consequently with the civil
institutions of the country, will rather tend to pre-
vent, than to accomplish, these desirable ends.”
Sir, I have read this extract that the members
of this General Conference who were not present
at the last session, and this listening assembly,
who may not have heard it before, may understand
282 Organization of the

distinctly the ground on which I, with my col-
leagues, stand in regard to these questions. I de-
sire that this document may stand recorded, with
my name to it, till I sleep in the dust of the earth.
(Amen.) I desire to leave it as a legacy to my
children and my children’s children; and, if I
might be permitted to say so, I would leave it as
a légacy to the Church when I am no more. I
want no man to write my epitaph. I will write it
myself. I want no man to write and publish my
Life. I will do that myself as far as I think it
may be necessary for the interests of posterity, or
for the benefit of the Church of God. I regret,
in reading the Life of my venerable colleague, who
has gone from earth to heaven since your last ses-
sion, that this document, as it stood connected
with his name, has not appeared in that memoir.
I thank the author of “The History of the Meth-
odist Episcopal Church”—I mean Dr. Bangs—for
having presented this document in that History.
I met it in Europe, and I am glad it is there. I
never wished my name detached from it; no, never,
never. When this was written, your superintend-
ents believed that they were acting in perfect ac-
cordance with the Pastoral Address of the General
Conference at its session in Cincinnati. We think
so now. Well, sir, I have only one farther re-
matk to make before I proceed to the chief object
for which I address the Conference this morning.
M. E. Church, South. 283

It is this: I desire that no undue influence may
be produced from the peculiar relation in which
I stand to the Church. Sympathy may exert too
great an influence when it is brought to bear on
great principles. The only subject which has
awakened my sympathies during this whole dis-
cussion, is the condition of my suffering brethren
of the colored race, and this never fails to do it.
No matter where I meet the man of color, whether
‘in the South, or in the North with the amount of
liberty he enjoys, the sympathies of my nature
are all awakened for him. Could I restore bleed-
ing Africa to freedom, to independence, to the
rights—to all the rights—of man, I would most
gladly doit. But this I cannot do—you cannot
do. And if I cannot burst the bonds of the col-
ored man, I will not strengthen them. If I cannot
extend to him all the good I would, I will never
shut him out from the benefits which I have it in
my power to bestow. But, sir, I cannot withhold
this sentiment from the Conference, that with the
mental and physical labors of this relation I could
never have been sustained—I could never have
supported myself—I could never have ministered
to the Church unless I had been settled down on
some principles equally as changeless as the throne
of God, in my estimation—never, never. It is a
constant recurrence to these great principles that
has sustained me in the discharge of what I con-
284 ‘Organization of the

ceive to be my duties—duties which grow out of my
relation to the Church, and not simply to this Con-
ference. These principles have sustained me in
the city, and in the desert waste; they have sus-
tained me in the North, and they have sustained
me in the South; they have sustained me in the
quarters of the black man, and in the huts of the
red man. Shake me from these principles, and I
am done—I have done, I say. But what is this?
Why, sir, is the Methodist Episcopal Church de-
pendent upon me? Far from it; her interest
hangs not upon my shoulders at all. She can do
a great deal better without me than I can without
her; much better. Well, sir, laying aside this
point—endeavoring to disengage myself as far as
possible, consider me.as expressing my own opin-
ions, without reference to my colleagues. I wish
to say, explicitly, that if the superintendents are
only to be regarded as the officers of the General
Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church,
and consequently, as officers of the Methodist
Episcopal Church, liable to be deposed at will by
a simple majority of this body, without a form of
trial, no obligation existing growing out of the
constitution and laws of the Church, even to as-
sign cause wherefore—I say, if this doctrine be a
correct one, every thing I have to say hereafter is
powerless, and falls to the ground. But brethren
will permit me to say, strange as it may seem,
M. E. Church, South. 285

although I have had the honor and the privilege
to be a member of the General Conference of the
Methodist Episcopal Church ever since its present
organization, though I was honored with a seat in
the convention of ministers which organized it, in
this respect I have heard for the first time, either
on the floor of this Conference, in an Annual Con-
ference, or through the whole of the private mem-
bership of the Church, this doctrine advanced ;
this is the first time I ever heard it. Of course
it struck me as a novelty. I am not going to
enter the arena of controversy with this Confer-
ence. I desire that my position may be defined.
I desire to understand my landmarks as a Bishop
of the Methodist Episcopal Church—not the
Bishop of the General Conference, not the Bishop
of any Annual Conference. I thought that the
constitution of the Church—I thought that its laws
and regulations—I thought that the many solemn
vows of ordination, the parchment which I hold
under the signatures of the departed dead —I
thought that these had defined my landmarks—I
thought that these had prescribed my duties—I
thought that these had marked out my course. In
my operations I have acted under the conviction
that these were my directions and landmarks, and
it affords me great consolation this day to stand,
at least in the judgment of this body, to which I
hold myself responsible, and before which I will
286 ‘Organization of the

always be ready te appear to answer to any charge
they shall prefer against me—I say it affords me
some gratification to have stood acquitted for
twenty years in the discharge of the high trust
committed to my hands; and I here desire to offer
my grateful acknowledgments to the Episcopal Com-
mittee for the report they have brought to this
body, and to the Conference for their cordial ac-
ceptance of that report. I say I do it with senti-
ments of sincerity; and it is the more cordial to
me in view of what may yet be to come. In this
regard, although I have trembled beneath the
weight of responsibility, and shrunk before the
consciousness of my inability, and especially as I
have felt my physical infirmities coming upon me,
and knowing that I must be in the neighborhood
of mental infirmity, I stand this day acquitted in
my own conscience—(O that I may be acquitted
at the bar of my eternal Judge!)—that I have, to
the best of my ability, with sincerity of heart,
and with the ardent desire to promote the great
interests of the Church, and the cause of God, in
the discharge of the duties which you have in-
trusted to me—I have never, in the discharge of
this trust—God is my witness—I have never given
an appointment to any preacher with a desire or
design to afflict him. Indeed, if I could do it, I
should abhor myself. Now, sir, whether this Con-
ference is to sustain the position on which I have
M. E. Church, South. 287

acted, or not, they are very soon to settle in the
vote which is before them; I mean, they are to
settle this question, whether it is the right of this
body, and whether they have the power to depose
a Bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church;
whether they have a right to depose my colleague
—to depose me, without a form of trial; see ye
to that. Without specification of wrong, and by
almost universal acclamation over this whole house,
that Bishop Andrew has been unblamable in his
Christian character; without blame in his minis-
terial vocation; that he has discharged the duties
of his sacred office to the Church of God with in-
tegrity, with usefulness, and with almost universal
acceptability, and in good faith; with this declara-
tion before the community, before the world, will
this Conference occupy this position, that they
have power, authority, to depose Bishop Andrew,
without a form of trial, without charge, and with-
out being once called on to answer for himself in
the premises—what he did say was voluntary.
Well, brethren, I had conceived, I had under-
stood, from the beginning, that special provision
was provided for the trial of a Bishop. The con-
stitution has provided that no preacher, no person,
was to be deprived of the right of trial, according
to the forms of Discipline, and of the right of ap-
peal; but, sir, if I understand the doctrine ad-
vanced and vindicated, it is that you may depose
288 Organization of the

a Bishop without the form of trial; you may de-
pose him without any obligation to show cause,
and therefore he is the only minister in your
Church who has no appeal. It seems to me that
the Church has made special provision for the
trial of the Bishop, for the special reason that the
Bishop has no appeal. Well, now, sir, I only
“make these observations, as I said, to the ear of
reason. You will remember that this whole thing
is going out before the world, as well as the Church.
I wish to know my landmarks, to find out where
I stand; for indeed I do not hesitate to say to you,
that if my standing, and the relation in which I
have been placed to the Methodist Episcopal
Church, under my solemn vows of ordination—if
my relation is to stand on the voice of a simple
majority of this body, without a form of trial, and
without an obligation even to show me cause why
I am deposed, I have some doubt whether there is
the man on this floor that would be willing to stand
in my place. Now, brethren will at once perceive
the peculiar situation in which I am placed. Here
are my brethren from the Ohio and other Confer-
ences. We have been together in great harmony
and peace. There has been great union of spirit
everywhere; but I said at the beginning, there
were periods in the history of every man occupy-
ing any important relation or station in society,
when his individual character and influence could

i
M. E. Church, South. 289

not be neutralized by the laws of association. You
must unmoor me from my anchorage on the basis
of this book; you must unsettle me from my prin-
ciples—my settled and fixed principles. From
these I cannot be shaken by any influences on my
right hand or on my left hand; neither the zeal of
youth nor the experience of hoary age shall move
me from my principles. Convince me that I am
wrong, and I yield. And here it may be neces-
sary that I should make an observation in regard
to what I have said before: it seems to have been
misunderstood. I said, You may immolate me,
but you cannot immolate me on a Southern altar;
you cannot immolate me on a Northern altar; J
can only be immolated on the altar of the union
of the Methodist Episcopal Church. What do I
mean by this? I mean—call it a compact—call it
compromise, constitutional Discipline, what you
will—I mean on the doctrines and provisions of
this book, and I consider this as the bond of union
of the M. E. Church. Here, then, I plant my
feet, and here I stand. Let brethren, sir, not mis-
understand me in another point; a point in which
they may misunderstand me, in which I have been
misunderstood ; and you join me on this point. I
hold that the General Conference of the Methodist
Episcopal Church has an indisputable right—con-
stitutional, sacred—to arraign at her tribunal

every Bishop; to try us there; to find us guilty
13
290 Organization of the

of any offense with which we are charged on evi-
dence, and to excommunicate—expel us. I am
always ready to appear before that body in this
regard. I recognize fully their right. But not
for myself—not for these men on my right hand,
and on my left hand; but for your sakes, and for
the Church of God, of which you are members and
ministers, let me ask you, let me entreat you, not
to rush upon the resolution which is now before
you. Posterity, sir, will review your actions—
history will record them; and whatever we may
do here will be spread out before the face of the
world; the eyes of men will be fixed upon it. In
this view I was not surprised at all to hear breth-
ren say, “ Pause, brethren, I beseech you, pause,”
and I was not surprised to see men of mind and
of thought approach the thing with fear and trem-
bling. But brethren apprehend that there are
great difficulties involved in this subject; they ap-
prehend that fearful consequences are to take
place, on whichever side of the question they shall
move. Pass it, and the South suppose themselves
involved in irretrievable ruin. Refuse to pass it,
and the North consider the consequences perilous
to them. Permit me to say, sir, that I have had
some acquaintance, personal acquaintance, both
with the North and the South; I think I have
been able to cast an impartial eye over these great
departments of the Church. I may err in judg-
M. E. Church, South. 291

ment, but 1 apprehend that the difficulties may
not be as insurmountable as brethren have appre-
hended them to be. I know that some of my
brethren of the North are involved in such a man-
ner that I cannot apprehend—I perceive no way
in which they can compromise this question.
Why? For the obvious reason that it involves a
principle. I will compromise with no man when
a principle is involved in the compromise. What
is that principle? The men that avow it are as
honest as any men on this floor. I know them;
in the men there is no guile. What is the princi-
ple? It was advanced by my worthy Brother
Cass the other day. Can he compromise the prin-
ciple? You must convince him of the error of
his principle before he will compromise it. What
is it? It is that slavery, under all circumstances,
is a sin against God.

Mr. Cass interposed. May I correct the Bishop?
I believe I did not say so; I said it was a moral
evil.

Bishop Soule proceeded. Well, I am glad to
be corrected. That is not Brother Cass’s princi-
ple. A moral evil—a moral evil, and not a sin,
under all circumstances. It affords me a great
deal of pleasure to hear my worthy brother’s state-
ment, for it greatly increasés my hope that we
shall have a compromise.

Now, sir, notwithstanding brethren have thought,
292 Organization of the

and with perfect sincerity, that they were ready
to act on the resolution; although undoubtedly a
large majority of this body have been prepared
for it for some time, I cannot but believe that it
might be premature in the Conference taking action
on it even now. I will offer one or two reasons
why I think the Conference is not prepared for
action on the resolution. We have been informed
here, from documents—to a great extent petitions
and memorials—on the subject of slavery in its
various aspects and interests. These documents,
these petitions and memorials, have been received
with the respect due to the right of petition. They
have been committed to a large and judicious com-
mittee to examine and report. That committee
has not reported to this body; it will report; I
need not say to you that it will report. The re-
spect due to some thousand petitioners to this
body will lay them under solemn obligation to re-
port; and is it not possible that this report—on
the subject immediately connected with the reso-
lution before you—may afford you some light?
You will have in the report of that committee
several important items of information clearly de-
veloped before you. You will know the number
of the petitioners, of the memorialists, in each of
the Annual Conferences. You will know the rela-
tive proportion of these petitioners to the whole
number of the Methodist Church within these
M. E. Church, South. 293

Conferences. You will know the aggregate num-
ber of all these memorialists and petitioners, and
you will consequently know the relative number
in regard to the whole community of the M. E.
Church. It will not be disputed, I think, on the
floor of this General Conference, that the subjects,
so far as they have been presented when the me-
morials were up, that the subjects on which you
are memorialized in these documents are not local.
They are not subjects appertaining specially and
exclusively to the memorialists. So faras I heard,
every subject was of a general character, in which
every member of the Methodist Episcopal Church,
East, West, North, and South, has an equal in-
terest and concern. The report of your commit-
tee may throw much light on this great subject.
But this is not all. I beg to suggest to the breth-
ren that the views of the great body of the Meth-
odist Church, and the great body of her ministers,
are not, and cannot be represented here, in regard
to the special point before you; and if this bea
subject in which all the ministers of the M. E.
Church, and all the members of the M. E. Church,
have an equal interest and concern, is it safe for
this body to proceed to such an important action
in regard to the whole interests of the Church,
' without having a more full development of the
subject, both from ministers and Church, than the
memorials as yet presented afford? Iaskit. Now
294 Organization of the

will the delegation from New York tell us what
are the views of the great body of the Methodists
within the New York Conference on this subject?
We have been sitting here, Mr. President, on this
case almost from the time we commenced it. It
has been, however, before this community. It
has been out before the whole Church, and from
the views the brethren have taken, I have been
almost surprised that we have not had memorials
from the city where we sit; I have been almost
surprised that we have not had memorials from
the people in Philadelphia, from the people in Bal-
timore, and from the people in Boston. We have
had no memorials. There has been no expression
on their part, as I have heard; and yet, in the
midst of this enlightened body of Methodists, are
we prepared thus to say what is the view of the
people around us on this question? and, under
such circumstances, do you hesitate to stay the
question in the resolution before you? I beg the
brethren to go a little farther on this subject. I
will go with my brethren to Ohio. Now I do not
know—I am a resident in Ohio, I have some ac-
quaintance in Ohio; both with preachers and with
our very excellent and worthy membership in
Ohio, my brethren from them, these delegates,
have more, and, doubtless, can say more—I should
not dare, on the floor of this Conference, to say
that the act would meet the approbation of the
M. EL. Church, South. 295

great body of preachers and members in Ohio; I
dare not say it. It is sufficient for me, however,
in the present position I occupy, to say that the
Church has not known the subject, and has ex-
pressed no opinion on the subject whatsoever. I
settle it down, then, as the basis on which I shall
proceed, that we have not, and cannot have,
the views of our ministers and people generally
on this subject, so fully expressed to us as to
others.

The adoption of that resolution deposes Bishop
Andrew without form or trial; such is my deliber-
ate opinion. I do not believe it is safe for our
community; Ido not believe it is safe for you;
and I am out of this question. What shall be
done? The question, I know, wakes up the
attention of every brother. Can it be possi-
ble that the Methodist Episcopal Church is in
such a state of excitement—in such a state, I
had almost said, of revolution—as to be unpre-
pared to send out the plain, simple facts in the
case to the Churches, to the Annual Confer-
ences, everywhere through our community, and
waive all action on this subject till another Gen-
eral Conference ?

I said, almost at the commencement of these
remarks, sir, that I was not afraid of the delibera-
tion of men, of. our Annual Conferences, of the
General Conferences—I am afraid of the passions
296 Organization of the

of men, and I could present before you some con-
siderations to illustrate the views that I have given
you; and if I give you these views in error of
judgment, be assured that they are not views
which originate on the spur of the moment; they
are the result of sober and deliberate investiga-
tion. Can it be possible that the simple circum-
stance of Bishop Andrew’s holding an office as a
Bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church four
years longer, with this statement of facts in the
case—simple facts in the case—spread out before
the enlightened body of this great Methodist com-
munity—is there to be an earthquake? Iam not
prepared to believe it; I soberly am not prepared
to believe it. Well, sir, this is the view that I
take of the subject. Permit me to make one other
suggestion. The providence of God directs the
whirlwind and the storm; clouds and darkness in-
deed may be round about us, but righteousness
and justice are the habitation of his throne. Let
us be careful that we never suffer a human arm to
impede the operations of Providence. My be-
loved colleague, Bishop Andrew, and myself, and
all my colleagues, may have passed away from
these scenes of trouble and the passions which
now agitate the Church of God—may go to sleep,
in God’s providence, long before four years go by.

How easy it is for God to direct the elements
of society! Don’t be surprised, then, brethren,
M. E. Church, South. 297

when I say to you, Pause. Brethren may possi-
bly have a little more light; there may be some
ray from heaven or earth yet to shine upon this
subject. Now it is the solemn conviction of my
mind that the safest course you can pursue in the
premises is to pass this subject without any impli-
cation of Bishop Andrew’s character at all, and to
send out officially the plain and simple facts in
the case to all your societies—to all your Confer-
ences. Let it be read everywhere, and then we
may have a farther expression of opinion, without
any kind of agitation. I am about to take my
leave of you, brethren. You must know—you
cannot but know, that with the principles I have
stated to you—with the avowal of my sentiments
in regard to this subject—it will not be Bishop
Andrew alone that your word will affect! No,
sir, [ implicate neither my colleagues on my right
hand nor on my left; but I say the decision of
the question cannot affect Bishop Andrew alone.
I wish it to be distinctly understood, it cannot
affect him alone. I mean specially in this point—
I say that the resolution on which we are just
about to act goes to sustain the doctrine that the
General Conference have power and right to de-
pose one of the Bishops of the Methodist Episco-
pal Church without the form of trial—that you
are under no obligation from the constitution or

laws of the Church to shew cause even. Now
13*
298 Organization of the

>

every man must see, and every man must know,
that Bishop Andrew cannot be involved alone in
the vote. It is the principle which is involved.
It goes to say that when this Conference shall vote
on the subject—a simple majority of this Confer-
ence—without form of trial, can depose a Bishop
of the Methodist Episcopal Church. Do you un-
derstand it so? If Iam mistaken, I shall stand
corrected—and I need not say to this Conference
that such a decision will involve others beside. It
involves the office; it involves the charge; it in-
volves the relation itself.

And now, in taking leave, I offer devout prayer
to Almighty God that you may be directed wisely
in the decision you are about to make. I have
given to you what, in my sober and deliberate
judgment, is the best and safest course which you
can pursue—safest for all concerned. I want that
opinion to have no more influence upon you than
it justly deserves in the Conferences—all the Con-
ferences. I thank the Conference for the atten-
tion they have been pleased to give me. I thank
the audience for their attention. Ivery well know
—I am not at all unapprised that the position I oc-
cupy—in which I stand on the principles of that
resolution—on the principles involved in it—may
seal my fate. I say I am not at all unapprised of
that. Let me go; but I pray you hold to princi-
ples—to principles; and with these remarks, I
M. EL. Church, South. 299

submit the whole to your and God’s direction.

(Amen !)

Dr. Capers was the last speaker on the South-
ern side who addressed the Conference.

“The first point Dr. Capers made was in respect
to the unity of the Church. His argument was
in substance this: Bishop Andrew is under arrest
as a slaveholder, because thereby he has made it
impossible for himself to exercise in the non-slave-

holding States his Episcopal functions. Very
well. You maintain that a General Conference is
the supreme power in the Church, to which the
Bishops are subordinate and responsible. How
absurd is the clamor against a slaveholding Bishop,
as a contamination upon a part of the Church,
when the General Conference itself includes slave-
holders, who thus, by the very unity of the Church,
connect these immaculate Conferences inextricably
with ‘the great evil.’ ‘Yes, sir, he said, ‘they
and I are brethren, whether they will or no. The
same holy hands have been laid upon their heads
and upon my head. The same vows which they
have taken, I have taken. At the same altar where
they minister, do I minister; and with the same
words mutually on our tongues. Weare the same
ministry, of the same Church; not lke, but edentr-
cal. Arethey Elders? SoamJI. Spell the word.
‘There is not a letter in it which they dare deny
300 Organization of the

me. Take their measure. Jam justas high as they
are, and they areas lowas Iam. We are not one
ministry for the North, and another ministry for the
South; but one, and one only, for the whole Church.’

“Tt could not have made his argument more
conclusive or irresistible, had he added, that by
virtue of this same unity and connectionalism of
the Church, he, a slaveholder, had himself been
called on by Northern as well as Southern votes to
represent the entire American Methodist Church,
a few years previously, before the British Wes- -
leyan Conference. Had the lapse of these few
years altered the immutable law of Christian
morals, and made that to be wrong to-day which
was perfectly right then?

“After a brief examination of the new doctrine
which had been improvised to cover the approach-
ing action, that, namely, which held Bishops to be
merely officers of the General Conference, liable to
be set aside as class-leaders, at the mere pleasure
of a majority, and showing what a solemn farce
the consecration service would become on such a
supposition, Dr. Capers went on to exhibit the
unconstitutionality of the contemplated proceeding.
He maintained that whatever else the Constitution
of the Church might be, it must first be Christian,
and secondly, Protestant, and thirdly, consistent
with the great object for which the Methodist
Church was raised up, to spread scriptural holiness
M. E. Church, South. 301

over these lands. In elaborating this last point, he
showed how the proceedings against the Bishop
must impede the course of the ministry in many of
the States, and debar access altogether to large
portions of the colored population. He was now
approaching a point of view where, from the very
office he had held under the General Conference
for the last four years—that of Missionary Secre-
tary for the South—he was entitled to speak with
the highest authority. If any man in America
could be supposed to be well informed on this sub-
ject, Dr. Capers was that man. And what was his
testimony? ‘Never, never,’ said he, ‘have I suf-
fered, as in view of the evil which this measure
threatens against the South. The agitation has
begun there; and I tell you that though our hearts
were to be torn from our bodies, it could avail
nothing when once you have awakened the feeling
that we cannot be trusted among the slaves. Once
you have done this, you have effectually destroyed us.
I could wish to die sooner than live to see such a
day. As sure as you live, there are tens of thou-
sands, nay, hundreds of thousands, whose destiny
may be periled by your decision on this case.
When we tell you that we préach to a hundred
thousand slaves in our missionary field, we only
announce the beginning of our work—the begin-
ning openings of the door of access to the most
numerous masses of slaves in the South. When
302 Organization of the

we add that there are two hundred thousand now
within our reach who have no gospel unless we
give it them, it is still but the same announcement
of the beginnings of the opening of that wide and
effectual door, which was so lovg closed, and so
lately has begun to be opened, for the preaching
of the gospel by our ministry, to a numerous and
destitute portion of the people. O close not this
door! Shut us not out from this great work, to
which we have been so signally called of God.’
“Tn this strain he went on to the conclusion of .
his speech. Had it been within the possibility of
human agency to close or bridge the gulf of sepa-
ration which yawned between the Northern and
Southern sections of the Church, this fervid, tell-
ing, and powerful appeal to the Christian prin-
ciples and emotions of the majority, must have
done it. Were they not the very men by eminence,
who were clamoring about the civil and social con-
dition of the negro population of the Southern
States? But were they not, also, the very preachers
whose business it was to ask the question, ‘What
shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole
world, and lose his own soul?’ Was it possible
that these men cared nothing for the souls of the
negroes? Swallowed up, as some of them no
doubt were, in the abstractions of a fanaticism
which was blind to all spiritual and eternal inter-
ests, and hardened as-some of them possibly were
M. E. Church, South. 803

by the hypocritical cant of abolitionism, there was
yet enough of sound Christianity among the major-
ity of that General Conference to feel the force of
those considerations—irresistible to a good man—
which in so touching a style this speech had set be-
fore them. Why, then, did they carry out the meas-
ure objected to on such weighty considerations?
The answer is, that all considerate men among
them saw that the time had come for a separation.
They meant to meet the emergency with a steady
determination to do justice to the claims of that
portion of the Church represented by the minority.
Subsequent acts show that they are entitled to the
justification found alone in such a determination.

“Dr. Few, of Georgia, whose want of health had
deprived the South of his important services as a
delegate, upon reading Dr. Capers’s speech, made
the following remark: ‘I would be willing to risk
the whole cause upon that speech alone, with
every sound-minded, unprejudiced man, although
he should be required to read all that was said on
the opposite side.’”

The able speech of Dr. Capers was delivered
on the 30th of May, immediately after which Dr.
Peck suggested the propriety of bringing the de-
bate to a close. Bishop Andrew also asked that
the question might be taken. The motion for the

 

* Wightman’s Life of Capers, pp. 403-408.
304 Organization of the

previous question having failed, Bishop Hedding
then requested that the Conference might not sit
this afternoon, in order that the superintendents
might have an opportunity to consult together
with a view to fixing upon a compromise; and he
requested the Conference to revive the committee
of Northern and Southern brethren, discharged
some days since, that they might meet the Bish-
ops in council on this important question.

Dr. Durbin hailed the proposition with delight,
but he suggested that it would be better in the
circumstances not to revive the committee. Let
the Bishops meet together—Bishop Andrew as
well as the rest—and let them invite any brethren
to meet with them whom they pleased. He would
give them plenipotentiary powers in the case.
This suggestion was agreed to.

Dr. Olin then moved that the case of Bishop
Andrew be deferred till to-morrow morning.

On the 31st of May, the following address of
the Bishops was read by Bishop Waugh:

To the General Conference of the M. E. Church:

Rev. and Dear Brethren:—The undersigned re-
spectfully and affectionately offer to your calm con-
sideration the result of their consultation this after-
noon in regard to the unpleasant and very delicate
question which has been so long and so earnestly
debated before your body. They have, with the
M. E. Church, South. 305

liveliest interest, watched the progress of the dis-
cussion, and have awaited its termination with the
deepest solicitude. As they have poured over
this subject with anxious thought, by day and by
night, they have been more and more impressed
with the difficulties connected therewith, and the
disastrous results which, in their apprehension, are |
the almost inevitable consequences of present ac-
tion on the question now pending before you. To
the undersigned it is fully apparent that a decision
thereon, whether affirmatively or negatively, will
most extensively disturb the peace and harmony
of that widely extended brotherhood which has
so effectively operated for good in the United
States of America and elsewhere during the last
sixty years, in the development of a system of
active energy, of which union has always been a
main element. They have, with deep emotion,
inquired, Can any thing be done to avoid an evil
so much deprecated by every friend of our com-
mon Methodism? Long and anxiously have they
waited for a satisfactory answer to this inquiry,
but they have paused in vain. At this painful
crisis they have unanimously concurred in the
propriety of recommending the postponement of
farther action in the case of Bishop Andrew until
the ensuing General Conference. It does not enter
into the design of the undersigned to argue the pro-
priety of their recommendation, otherwise strong
306 Organization of the

and valid reasons might be adduced in its support.
They cannot but think that if the embarrassment
of Bishop Andrew should not cease before that
time, the next General Conference, representing
the pastors, ministers, and people of the several
Annual Conferences, after all the facts in the case
shall have passed in review before them, will be
better qualified than the present General Confer-
ence can be to adjudicate the care wisely and dis-
creetly. Until the cessation of the embarrass-
ment, or the expiration of the interval between
the present and the ensuing General Conference,
the undersigned believe that such a division of
the work of the general superintendency might be
made, without any infraction of a constitutional
_principle, as would fully employ Bishop Andrew
“in those sections of the Church in which his
presence and services would be welcome and cor-
dial. If the course pursued on this occasion by
the undersigned be deemed a novel one, they per-
suade themselves that their justification, in the
view of all candid and peace-loving persons, will
be found in their strong desire to prevent disunion,
and to promote harmony in the Church.
Very respectfully and affectionately submitted,
JosHua SouLe,
Evan Heppine,
B. Waveu,
T. A. Morris.
MM. EL. Church, South. 307

This address was followed by remarks from
several members, among whom was Dr. Bangs,
who proposed that it be referred “to a committee
of nine,” which was finally agreed to.

On the Ist of June, Bishop Hedding expressed
a wish to withdraw his name from the communi-
cation presented by the Bishops on the previous
day, offering the following reasons for this desire:
That he signed the address “as a peace measure,”
and that “he believed it would be generally ac-
ceptable to the Conference,” but that “in both
these expectations he was disappointed.” Bishops
Waugh and Morris wished their names to remain,
the former until “he saw other reasons than had
yet appeared ” for an abandonment of the position
he had taken, and the latter “as a testimony that
he had done what he could to preserve the unity
of the body.”

Bishop Soule said he “ put his signature to the
document with the same views and under the same
convictions as his worthy colleagues did, and
neither his views nor his convictions were changed
in any way. And he wished that document to
go forth through a thousand channels to the world.
It is already before the American people, and he
might not, and would not, withdraw it.”

On motion of Dr. Bangs, the communication
was laid on the table by a vote of 95 to 83.

After this vote, Dr. Bangs said it was well
308 Organization of the

known that he had used every effort in his power
to have this matter brought to a compromise, and
he had indulged a hope that this would be the re-
sult. It was with that view that he labored to
have this document referred to a committee. But
from what had been told him by members from
the North and South, not a vestige of this hope
remained, and he would now urge immediate ac-
tion upon the substitute, if it was before the
house.- He believed wisdom, and prudence, and
Christianity, and brotherly love, dictated that
course, and that farther discussion would not
change one mind.

Dr. Winans said the last speaker had referred
to the South, and his remarks in their connection
went to say that the South were opposed to the
proposition from the superintendents. He begged
to say that the Southern delegates were of one
mind to entertain the proposition of the superin-
tendents.

Dr. Bangs explained that he did not mean to
say that the South objected to the proposal of the
Bishops, but that the Conference could not come
to any general compromise on the subject. He
should not, himself, move the previous question.

Mr. Collins opposed the motion for taking up
the order of the day. He had not given up all
hopes of peace; and if they would wait a few
minutes and listen to a proposal from Dr. Durbin,
M. EF. Church, South. 309

he thought a compromise might yet be effected.
They were bound to make a settlement of the
question, he knew, but in their proposed action
the Bishops were against them; and if they would
withdraw their names from the communication
they had made, and allow Dr. Durbin to use it as
his own, he (Mr. Collins) believed a plan of pacifi-
cation might still be concocted. The proposition
was, as a last effort to bring peace and save the
Church from division, to add to the suggestion of
the Episcopacy some resolutions expressive of
the regret of that General Conference that Bishop
Andrew had become connected with slavery, and
request him to rid himself of the embarrassment
as soon as possible; and, in addition, a resolution
to take off the journals all that related to the
colored testimony question. He thought such a
measure would answer their purpose, and heal the
wound of the Church.

Mr. Blake was pursuing his labors as a minister
among the colored people, and little thought that
the question of slavery would be brought up. He
had no anticipation of a storm, but he found that
the foundations of the great deep were broken up,
and the ark of their Church was floating on the
waves. But he thanked God that in the distance
he saw a blessed Ararat. He went on describing
the various forms under which slavery had been
discussed in the present Conference, alluded to the
310 Organization of the

definitions of the Episcopal office during the de-
bate, and thought that Dr. Durbin’s substitute
would not reconcile the difficulties.

Mr. Longstreet said, as long as there was any
hope of reconciliation, he would desire that this
question be postponed. As yet, the South had
not made one proposition to adjust the matter
amicably. He trusted, therefore, that the door
would not be closed. Time was a matter of very
little consequence compared with the importance
of the questions at issue. He wished to wait, and
see what time would bring forth.

Dr. Paine said he was a man of peace. He
deeply regretted to hear unkind words from both
sides. He never dealt in wholesale denuncia-
tion. The South felt calm as they could feel when
the importance of the question was considered.
He considered the substitute to be mandatory. It
acted as a mandamus; it had been so described.
This placed the South in an awkward position.
He hoped some ground would be proposed by the
North that both could occupy. If there was no
such common ground, the South was prepared for
the result.

Mr. Porter recalled the attention of the Con-
ference to the discussion of the last fortnight as
evidence of the peace-loving character of the
Northern members. They wanted to be one body.
He did not believe they could live as one body
M. L. Church, South. 311

with any thing less than the substitute. He
asked. what was the prospect of peace—Bishop
Andrew had declared that he could not recede
from his position, and the South had taken the
same ground. It was no use to discuss the ques-
tion farther, therefore, but they had better come
up square to the question, and decide the point at
once, that the people might be satisfied.

Mr. Mitchell proposed an amendment, to be
appended to the resolution, to the effect that the
Bishop should so resign until a majority of the An-
nual Conferences desired him to resume his office.
Mr. M. did not think it necessary to enter into a
discussion whether the resolution respecting Bishop
Andrew was advisory or mandatory. He wished
the substitute to come before the Conference this
morning.

On motion, the order of the day was taken up.

Bishop Soule said he had good reason to believe
that brethren had entertained erroneous views
with respect to the position he occupied at the
time he addressed the Conference on this subject;
and he now wished to correct those views, that
there might be a proper understanding in the mat-
ter before they had action on the substitute. It
must have occurred to the brethren that his re-
marks at that time were entirely irrelevant, except
on the understanding that the resolution was man-
datory. He looked upon it as suspending Bishop
312 Organization of the

Andrew. There was a great difference between
suspension and advice. If this action was not in-
tended to be judicial, he should withdraw many of
his remarks. If it was a mandatory act, it was
judicial. One member said it was merely a re-
quest to Bishop Andrew to resign; but several
had declared it to be judicial, and were not con-
tradicted. Again: the argument was, that slavery
could not exist in the Episcopacy of the Method-
ist Church. One brother had said, that if the
resolution passed, Bishop Andrew was still a
Bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church. If
this was the case, his remarks, he must repeat,
were irrelevant. He considered the proceeding
as a judicial one, suspending Brother Andrew from
his duties as Bishop of the Methodist Episcopal
Church.

Mr. J. T. Peck moved the previous (that is, the
main) question, which was carried. The resolu-
tion was then read, and the ayes and noes were
taken ; Bishop Soule observing, that definite action
must necessarily be hereafter taken to decide
whether the resolution was mandatory or advisory.+
The votes were given amid the most profound still-
ness.

The resolution (Mr. Finley’s substitute) read as
follows:

“Whereas, the Discipline of our Church forbids
the doing any thing calculated to destroy our itiner-
M. E. Church, South. 313

ant 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.”

The yeas and nays being called by delegations,
were as follows :

YEAS.

New York Conference: Nathan Bangs, Stephen
Olin, Phineas Rice, George Peck, John B. Strat-
ten, Peter P. Sandford, Fitch Reed, Samuel D.
Ferguson, Stephen Martindale, Marvin Richard-
son. Zroy: Truman Seymour, John M. Wever,
James Covel, jr., Tobias Spicer, Seymour Cole-
man, James B. Houghtaling, Jesse T. Peck.
Providence: J. Lovejoy, F. Upham, 8. Benton,
Paul Townsend. New Hampshire: Elihu Scott,
J. Perkins, Samuel Kelly, 8. Chamberlain, John
G. Dow, J. Spaulding, C. D. Cahoon, William D.
Cass. New England: J. Porter, D. 8. King, P.
Crandall, C. Adams, G. Pickering. Pittsburgh:

William Hunter, H. J. Clark, J. Spencer, 8. El-
14
9

314 Organization of the

liott, R. Boyd, S. Wakefield, J. Drummond.
Maine: M. Will, E. Robinson, D. B. Randall, C.
W. Morse, J. Hobart, Heman Nickerson, G. Web-
ber. Black River: A. D. Peck, A. Adams, G.
Baker, W. W. Ninde. rie: J. J. Steadman,
John Bain, G. W. Clark, J. Robinson, T. Good-
win. Oneida: J. M. Snyder, 8. Comfort, N.
Rounds, D. A. Shepherd, H. F. Row, E. Bowen,
D. Holmes, jr. Michigan: HE. Crane, A. Billings,
J. A. Baughman. Sock River: B. Weed, H. W.
Reed, J. T. Mitchell. Genesee: G. Fillmore, 8.
Luckey, A. Steele, F. G. Hibbard, S. Seager, A.
Abell, W. Hosmer, J. B. Alverson. North Ohio:
E. Thompson, J. H. Power, A. Poe, E. Yocum,
W. Runnells. Jdinois: P. Akers, P. Cartwright.
Ohio: C. Elliott, William H. Raper, J. M. Trim-
ble, J. B. Finley, L. L. Hamline, Z. Connell, J.
Ferree. Jndiana: M. Simpson, A. Wiley, E. R.
Ames, J. Miller, C. W. Ruter, A. Wood, A. Eddy,
J. Havens. eras: J. Clark. Baltimore: J. A.
Collins, A. Griffith, J. Bear, N. J. B. Morgan,
J. Davis. Philadelphia: J. P. Durbin, L. Scott.
New Jersey: I. Winner, J. 8. Porter, J. K. Shaw.
GET:
NAYS.

New York Conference: C. W. Carpenter. Mfichi-
gan: G. Smith. Rock River: J. Sinclair. IWinois :
J. Stamper, J. Van Cleve, N. G. Berryman. Ken-
tucky: H. B. Bascom, W. Gunn, H. H. Kavanaugh,
M. EF. Church, South. 315

E. Stevenson, B. T. Crouch, G. W. Brush. Ohio:
E.W.Sehon. Holston: E. IF. Sevier, 8. Patton, T.
Stringfield. Zennessee: R. Paine, J. B. McFerrin,
A. L. P. Green, T. Maddin. MMissour’d: W. W.
Redman, W. Patton, J. C. Berryman, J. M. Jame-
son. North Carolina: J. Jameson, Peter Doub,
H. G. Leigh. Memphis: G. W. D. Harris, 8. 8S.
Moody, William McMahon, T. Joyner. Arkansas :
J. C. Parker, W. P. Ratcliffe, A. Hunter. Vir-
gina: J. Karly, T. Crowder, W. A. Smith, L. M.
Lee. Mississippi: William Winans, B. M. Drake,
J. Lane, G..M. Rogers. Texas: L. Fowler. Ala-
bama: J. Boring, J. Hamilton, William Murrah,
G. Garrett. Georgia: G. F. Pierce, W. J. Parks,
L. Pierce, J. W. Glenn, J. E. Evans, A. B. Long-
street. South Carolina: William Capers, W. M.
Wightman, C. Betts, 8. Dunwody, H. A. C.
Walker. Baltimore: Hl. Slicer, J. A. Gere, T. B.
Sargent, C. B. Tippett, G. Hildt. Philadelphia:
T. J. Thompson, H. White, W. Cooper, I. T.
Cooper. New Jersey: Thomas Neal, Thomas Sov-
ereign. 69.

So the resolution was adopted by a vote of 111
against 69.
316 Organization of the

CHAPTER IV.

The effect of the action of the General Conference on the
Church in the South—Notice given by Dr. Pierce that
the Southern Delegates would enter their Protest—Reso-
lutions offered by Henry Slicer——Resolutions offered by
Dr. Capers—Referred to a Committee—Declaration of
the Southern Members—Dr. Elliott proposes its reference
—Speech of Peter P. Sandford—Reply of Dr. Longstreet
—Dr. Olin’s Remarks—Declaration referred—Resolution
of Instruction to the Committee—Protest of the Minority
—Communication from Bishops Soule, Hedding, Waugh,
and Morris—Reply of the Conference—Report of the
Committee of Nine—The Report discussed—Its adoption
—The Adjournment of the General Conference.

Tue adoption of the substitute offered by Mr.
Finley, virtually deposing Bishop Andrew from
the Episcopal office, was not unexpected to the
Southern delegates. Indeed, from the moment
when his official character was arrested, they
apprehended such a result. Knowing the effect
that these extrajudicial proceedings would have in
the South, they deemed it their duty to the
Church, to the welfare and advancement of which
they had consecrated their energies and their lives ;
M. E. Church, South. 317

to the African race residing in the South, so
many thousands of whom had been brought to
Christ through the instrumentality of Methodism;
and to the people among whom they lived and la-
bored, to manifest their disapproval in language
entirely free from ambiguity.

A quiet submission to the action of the General
Conference, would not only be the price of their
influence as ministers of the gospel of Christ
among the people they served, but would result
in the exile of Methodism from the Southern
States. Standing upon the New Testament basis,
they had preached to the master and the slave,
teaching humanity to the former, and obedience
to the latter, and had succeeded in winning both
to Christ. The smiles of Heaven were resting
on their labors, and the approval of the Almighty
was seen and felt in the happy conversion of
thousands.

Immediately after the vote of the Conference
on the substitute, Dr. Lovick Pierce arose and
said :

It would be within the recollection of the mem-
bers and spectators who had listened to this dis-
cussion with so much interest, that, in the event
of the Conference deciding upon the passage of
this resolution, the Southern delegation had de-
clared that they would enter their solemn protest
318 Organization of the

against it, without a dissenting voice or faltering
step. They should, at the earliest possible mo-
ment, do so, and it should be a manly, ministerial,
and proper protest against this action of the
Conference, as an extrajudicial act, that their
sentiments on the subject might go down to pos-
terity.

He contended that, however conscientiously—
and he gave them full credit for that—they had
acted, still they had acted contrary to the rule of
compromise. The constitutionality, or otherwise,
of their proceeding would probably be tried before
other tribunals. It had never entered into his
heart in any thing to depart from the spirit and
intention of the Discipline of the Church, and
those who were his brethren in the South were of
the same mind. He believed that, when the pub-
lic mind had been sounded, and the deep tones of
public opinion came pealing up from all quarters
of the Connection, there would be a verdict in
favor of the South.

On the 3d of June, Mr. Slicer, of Baltimore,
offered the following resolutions:

“Resolved, That it is the sense of this General
Conference that the vote of Saturday last, in the
case of Bishop Andrew, be understood as advisory
only, and not in the light of a judicial mandate.

“Resolved, 2dly, That: the final disposition of
M. EF. Church, South. 319

Bishop Andrew’s case be postponed until the Gen-
eral Conference of 1848, in conformity with the
suggestion of the Bishops, in their address to the
Conference on Friday, 31st May.

“H. SLIcer,

“T. B. Sargent.”

These resolutions were laid on the table by a
vote of 75 to 68—the South voting unanimously
against laying on the table.

On the same day Dr. Capers offered the follow-
ing resolution:

“Be it resolved by the delegates of all the Annual
Conferences in General Conference assembled, That
we recommend to the Annual Conferences to sus-
pend the constitutional restrictions which limit the
powers of the General Conference so far, and so
far only, as to allow of the following alterations
in the government of the Church, viz. :

“1. That the Methodist Episcopal Church, in
these United States and Territories, and the Re-
public of Texas, shall constitute two General Con-
ferences, to meet quadrennially, the one at some
place south, and the other north of the line which
now divides between the States commonly desig-
nated as free States and those in which slavery
exists.

“2. That each of the two General Conferences
thus constituted shall have full powers, under the
limitations and restrictions which are now of force
320 Organization of the

and binding on the General Conference, to make
rules and regulations for the Church, within their
territorial limits, respectively, and to elect Bishops
for the same.

“3. That the two General Conferences aforesaid
shall severally have jurisdiction as follows: The
Southern General Conference shall comprehend
the States of Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri,
and the States and Territories lying southerly
thereto, and also the Republic of Texas, to be
known and designated by the title of the ‘South-
ern General Conference of the Methodist Episco-
pal Church of the United States.’ And the
Northern General Conference to comprehend all
those States lying north of the States of Virginia,
Kentucky, and Missouri, as above, to be known
and designated by the title of the ‘Northern Gen-
eral Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church
in the United States.’

“4, And be it farther resolved, That as soon as
three-fourths of all the members of all the Annual
Conferences shall have voted on these resolutions,
and shall approve the same, the said Southern and
Northern General Conferences shall be deemed as
having been constituted by such approval; and it
shall be competent for the Southern Annual Con-
ferences to elect delegates to said Southern Gen-
eral Conference, to meet in the city of Nashville,
Tennessee, on the first of May, 1848, or sooner,
M. LE. Church, South. 321

if a majority of two-thirds of the members of the
Annual Conferences composing that General Con-
ference shall desire the same.

“5, And be tt farther resolved, as aforesaid, That
the Book Concerns at New York and Cincinnati
shall be held and conducted as the property and
for the benefit of all the Annual Conferences as
heretofore: the Editors and Agents to be elected
once in four years at the time of the session of
the Northern General Conference, and the votes
of the Southern General Conference to be cast by
delegates of that Conference attending the North-
ern for that purpose.

“6. And be wt farther resolved, That our
Church organization for foreign missions shall
be maintained and conducted jointly between
the two General Conferences as one Church, in
such manner as shall be agreed upon from time
to time between the two great branches of the
Church as represented in the said two Confer-
ences.” |

Dr. Bangs moved that the resolutions be re-
ferred to a select committee, consisting of Messrs.
Capers, Winans, Crowder, Porter, Fillmore, Akers,
Hamline, Davis, and Sandford. On the 5th of
June, Dr. Capers announced “that they could not
agree on a report which they judged would be
acceptable to the Conference.”

In the afternoon session of the same day, Dr.
14*
322 Organization of the

Longstreet presented the following “Declaration
of the Southern members:”

“The delegates of the Conferences in the slave-
holding States take leave to declare to the General
Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church,
that the continued agitation on the subject of
slavery and abolition in a portion of the Church—
the frequent action on that subject in the General
Conference—and especially the extrajudicial pro-
ceedings against Bishop Andrew, 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 contin-
uance of the jurisdiction of that General Conference
over these Conferences inconsistent with the suc-
cess of the ministry in the slaveholding States.”

Virginia Conference—John Early, W. A. Smith,
Thomas Crowder, Leroy M. Lee.

Kentucky —H. B. Bascom, William Gunn, H.
H. Kavanaugh, Edward Stevenson, B. T. Crouch,
G. W. Brush.

Missouri —_W. W. Redman, William Patton, J.
C. Berryman, J. M. Jameson.

Holston —E. F. Sevier, S. Patton, Thomas
Stringfield.

Georgia.—G. I. Pierce, William J. Parks, L.
Pierce, J. W. Glenn, J. E. Evans, A. B. Long-
street.
M. EF. Church, South. 323

North Carolina.—James Jameson, Peter Doub,
B. T. Blake.

Iitinois—J. Stamper.

Memphis —G. W. D. Harris, Wm. McMahon,
Thomas Joyner, 8. 8. Moody.
; Arkansas—John C. Parker, William P. Rat-
cliffe, Andrew Hunter.

Mississippi.—William Winans, B. M. Drake,
John Lane, G. M. Rogers.

Texas.—Littleton Fowler.

Alabama.—Jesse Boring, Jefferson Hamilton,
W. Murrah, G. Garrett.

Tennessee.—Robert Paine, John B. McFerrin,
A. L. P. Green, T. Maddin.

South Carolina.—W. Capers, William M. Wight-
man, Charles Betts, 8S. Dunwody, H. A. C. Walker.

Dr. Elliott proposed the reference of the paper
to a committee of nine.

Mr. Sandford said he had some objections to
that motion in the present form of the communi-
cation just read. It alleged what he presumed
the General Conference would not admit, that
there had been extrajudicial proceedings. against
Bishop Andrew. For one he denied that that
was the fact, and he supposed a majority of the
Conference would coincide in that view of the
matter, and he did not see low they could allow
a paper to come under their action which alleged
324 Organization of the

that which they did not believe to be true. He
was aware that during the discussion speakers on
the other side had said this was the case, but it was
expressly disavowed on the floor of that Confer-
ence; and he knew that the member who had
presented the document now before them had said,
just ‘before the vote was taken, that unless he
heard some expression to the contrary, he should
take the meaning attached to it by the friend of
the mover as its proper meaning. He (Mr. 8.)
heard no response in contradiction to the construc-
tion thus put upon the resolution. How then
could it come to pass that men who heard this
avowal could now come forward and say that this
Conference had been guilty of an extrajudicial
act? To him the course taken appeared as a
direct insult to that body, and such as they should
not yield to. Let those who had presented this
paper make a communication according to existing
and acknowledged facts, but not asserting what
the General Conference denied to be true. If
they thought the proposed course necessary, let
them say so without adding insult thereto, and the
Conference would hear them, but he could not con-
sent to having such a paper as the present one
referred to a committee.

Mr. Longstreet said he believed this was the
third speech they Had had from ‘that brother on
the subject of the sentence, or advice, or counsel,
M. EL. Church, South. 325

or whatever name they choose to give the action
on Saturday against the Bishop, and he had hoped
that in some one of those speeches he would have
told them how he did understand that action. He
(Mr. L.) had striven to get at it in vain. When
he rose some days ago to address the Conference,
he remarked that there was some ambiguity in the
form of the resolution, but that the plain import
of its language was, when taken in connection
with the facts, mandatory—imperative was his
word——and that he should thus understand it un-
less he was corrected by somebody. Nobody did
correct him, nor did he hear, until Dr. Durbin got
up, from the lips of any one that he had misinter-
preted the resolution. After that explanation he
(Mr. L.) said then, unless he was corrected he
should understand it as so explained, and nobody
objected, so he was at liberty to understand it
either way! He could not have conceived that
that Conference could have taken a position so
strictly ambiguous. When an explanatory reso-
lution on the subject was introduced the other
day, Mr. Sandford rose and said, that he thought
it very plain, but he never told us how he viewed
it. The vote of this Conference against the South
was then both mandatory and advisory. Will
any one dispute that? [No answer.] Well, now,
it is not disputed! Will that brother tell us how
he understood it? Then it appears to me we are
326 Organization of the

thrown back upon its plain legitimate terms, which,
in connection with the facts, make it mandatory
upon the Bishop. Why? Because you substi-
tuted it for the request, and changed the terms to
“itis the sense of this Conference,” etc. What
was the use of the substitute unless it was the
design of this Conference, which he could not be-
lieve, to have two or three positions on which each
man could take. his stand to explain his views?
Then, he should maintain, it was a sentence; and
did their saying so insult the Conference? Now,
a judicial sentence is one in which the tribunal
having cognizance of the case pronounces its
judgment after due-forms of law, on the finding of
a court or jury, after hearing all the circumstances
of the case. But had there been one single sen-
tence in this whole proceeding which partakes of
a judicial proceeding? Certainly not. Then the
resolution was the sense of the house expressed
extrajudicially?

Nothing (said Mr. L.) could have been farther
from our intention than to offer an insult to this
body. We have now the calmness of. despair.
This has been thrown out as an olive branch of
peace. It is hoped that we can now meet on
some common ground, for the thing is done, and
the mischief is accomplished, and now we are in a
situation to come together, and viewing the wreck,
see what we can save from it. We express our
M. EF. Church, South. 327

opinion that it is no longer desirable that this
Conference should have jurisdiction. This con-
tinual harassing us on a subject from which we
cannot escape, only brings us to quarrel with
each other. Now the question is, whether we
cannot meet with something that will harmonize
us all. Let me relieve the persons who present
that paper from any intention to insult or cast fire-
brands into this Conference. The word objected
to is so commonly used with reference to the re-
cent action of this Conference, that it has become
a household word with us, and I regret that the
brother should so generally take these verbal ex-
ceptions, and should exhibit this morbid sensibility
about mere words. I regret that he has not more
charity than to suppose that the fifty-two should
design to insult the one hundred and twenty-eight.

Mr. Sandford explained, that he did not attrib-
ute design in the matter.

Mr. Longstreet. Then it is an insult, which the
fifty-two had not capacity to discover.

At the request of the President, Mr. Longstreet
farther defined and illustrated what he conceived
to be meant by a judicial act. A man must be
brought to the judgment of a court of some kind,
according to the forms of law necessary to bring
him within the range of the judge’s power, when
by due form he is put upon his trial, and the jury
or court, having heard him, sentence is passed
328 Organization of the

upon him, and such sentence I take to be a judi-
cial sentence. But if brought up without any
precept having been directed to him setting forth
the accusation; and if, without examination of
witnesses, he is made to testify against himself,
and out of that testimony are extracted the
charges against him, the prosecutors being the
parties against whom the alleged offense has been
committed, the prosecutors trying him, and pro-
nouncing sentence without forms of law, and
without examining witnesses, then it is truly and
properly an extrajudicial act.

Dr. Olin said he would not have supported the
substitute if he had regarded its operations as judi-
cial or punitive. He considered that Bishop An-
drew was not punished, was not tried; that the
Conference did not depose him, nor in the legal
meaning or consequences of the terms employed
in that resolution did he consider that the Bishop
was in any way disqualified from performing the
functions of his office. His acts now would not
be invalid, though constitutionally he would be
liable to appear before the next General Confer-
ence and answer for his conduct. He would em-
body his sentiments in the form of resolutions,
which, however, he would not press upon the Con-
ference.

“Resolved, That this Conference does not consider
its action in the case of Bishop Andrew as either
M. E. Church, South. 329

judicial or punitive, but as a prudential regulation
for the security and welfare of the Church.

“Resolved, That having made a solemn declara-
tion of what, in their judgment, the safety and
peace of the Church require, it is not necessary
or proper to express any opinion as to what
amount of respect may justly belong to their ac-
tion in the premises.”

The Declaration was then referred to a commit-
tee of nine, consisting of Messrs. Paine, Fillmore,
Akers, Bangs, Crowder, Sargent, Winans, Hamline,
and Porter.

The following resolution of instruction to the
committee was adopted:

“Resolved, That the committee appointed to take
into consideration the communication of the dele-
gates from the Southern Conferences be instructed,
provided they cannot in their judgment devise a
plan for an amicable adjustment of the difficul-
ties now existing in the Church, on the subject of

- slavery, to devise, if possible, a constitutional plan

for a mutual and friendly division of the Church.
“J. B. McF rrr,
“Topras SPICER.”

It was apprehended by some of the Southern
delegates that the question of jurisdictional di-
vision might be embarrassed by constitutional
scruples, and hence it was moved by Mr. Crowder,
of Virginia, to amend the instruction by striking
330 Organization of the

out the word “constitutional.” This, however,
was defeated, the Conference determining on a
constitutional division if any. The committee
were to provide “a constitutional plan for a mu-
tual and friendly division of the Church,” provided
they cannot, in their judgment, devise a plan for
an ainicable adjustment of existing difficulties.

On the 6th of June, Dr. Henry B. Bascom, of
Kentucky, read the following Protest of the Mi-
nority in the case of Bishop Andrew:

In behalf of thirteen Annual Conferences of
the Methodist Episcopal Church, and portions of
the ministry and membership of several other
Conferences, embracing nearly five thousand min-
isters, traveling and local, and a membership of
nearly five hundred thousand, constitutionally
represented in this General Conference, we the
undersigned, a minority of the delegates of the
several Annual Conferences in General Conference
assembled, after mature reflection, impelled by
convictions we cannot resist, and in conformity
with the rights and usages of minorities, in the
instance of deliberative assemblies and judicial
tribunals, in similar circumstances of division and
disagreement, Do most solemnly, and in due form,
protest against the recent act of a majority of this
General Conference, in an attempt, as understood
by the minority, to degrade and punish the Rev.
M. £E. Church, South. 331

James O..Andrew, one of the Bishops of the
Methodist Episcopal Church, by declaring it to bé
the sense or judgment of the General Conference
that he desist from the exercise of his Episcopal
functions, without the exhibition of any alleged
offense against the laws or discipline of the Church,
without form of trial, or legal conviction of any
kind, and in the absence of any charge of want of
qualification or faithfulness in the performance of
the duties pertaining to his office.

We protest against the act of the majority in
the case of Bishop Andrew, as extrajudicial to all
intents and purposes, being both without law and
contrary to law. We protest against the act because
we recognize in this General Conference no right,
power, or authority, ministerial, judicial, or ad-
ministrative, to suspend or depose a Bishop of the
Methodist Episcopal Church, or otherwise subject
him to any official disability whatever, without the
formal presentation of a charge or charges, alleging
that the Bishop to be dealt with has been guilty
of the violation of some law, or at least some dis-
ciplinary obligation of the Church, and also upon
conviction of such charge after due form of trial.
We protest against the act in question as a viola-
tion of the fundamental law, usually known as the
compromise law of the Church, on the subject of
slavery—the only law which can be brought to
bear upon the case of Bishop Andrew, and the
332 Organization of the

assertion and maintenance of which, until it is
constitutionally revoked, is guarantied by the
honor and good faith of this body, as the repre-
sentative assembly of the thirty-three Annual
Conferences known as contracting parties in the
premises.”

And we protest against the act farther, as an at-
tempt to establish a dangerous precedent, subver-
sive of the union and stability of the Methodist
Episcopal Church, and especially as placing in
jeopardy the General Superintendency of the
Church, by subjecting any Bishop of the Church
at any time to the will and caprice of a majority
of the General Conference, not only without law,
but in defiance of the restraints and provisions of
law. The undersigned, a minority of the General
Conference, in protesting, as they do, against the
late act of the majority, in the virtual suspension
of Bishop Andrew, regard it as due to themselves
and those they represent, as well as to the charac-
ter and interests of the Church at large, to declare,
by solemn and formal avowal, that after a careful
examination of the entire subject, in all its rela-
tions and bearings, they protest as above; for the
reasons and upon the grounds following, viz., Ist.
The proceeding against Bishop Andrew in this
General Conference has been upon the assumption
that he is connected with slavery—that he is the
legal holder and owner of slave property. On the
M. E. Church, South. 333

subject of slavery in the Methodist Episcopal
Church, both as it regards the ministry and mem-
bership, we have special law, upon which the adju-
dication of all questions of slavery must, by in-
tention of law, proceed. The case of Bishop
Andrew, therefore, presents a simple question of
law and fact, and the undersigned cannot consent
that the force of circumstances and other merely
extrinsic considerations shall be allowed to lead to
any issue, except that indicated by the law and
the facts in the case. In the late act of the ma-
jority, law, express law, is appealed from, and
expediency in view of circumstances—relative
propriety—assumed necessity, is substituted in its
place as a rule of judgment. It is assumed, and
the assumption acted upon, that expediency may
have jurisdiction even in the presence of law—
the law, too, being special, and covering the case,
interms. In the absence of law, it might be compe-
tent for the General Conference to act upon other
grounds; this is not disputed, nor yet that it would
have been competent for the Conference to pro-
ceed upon the forms of law; but that the terms
and conditions of a special enactment, having all the
force of a common public charter, can be rightfully
waived in practice, at the promptings of a fugitive
unsettled expediency, is a position the undersigned
regard not merely as erroneous, but as fraught
with danger to the best interests of the Church.
334 Organization of the

The law of the Church on slavery has always
existed since 1785, but especially since 1804, and
in view of the adjustment of the whole subject, in
1816, as a virtual, though informal, contract of mu-
tual concession and forbearance, between the North
and the South, then, as now, known and existing
as distinct parties, in relation to the vexed ques-
tions of slavery and abolition. Those Conferences
found in States where slavery prevailed consti-
tuting the Southern party, and those in the non-
slaveholding States the Northern, exceptions to
the rule being found in both. The rights of the
legal owners of slaves, in all the slaveholding
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 subjec-
tion, and pledges himself to submit, as an article
of Christian faith, in the common creed of the
Church. Domestic slavery, therefore, wherever it
exists in this country, is a civil regulation, exist-
ing under the highest sanctions of constitutional
and municipal law known to the tribunals of the
country, and it has always been assumed at the
South, and relied upon as correct, that the North
or non-slaveholding States had no right, civil or
moral, to interfere with relations and interests
M. E. Church, South. 335

thus secured to the people of the South by all the
eraver forms of law and social order, and that it
cannot be done without an abuse of the constitu-
tional rights of citizenship. The people of the
North, however, have claimed to think differently,
and have uniformly acted toward the South in
accordance with such opposition of opinion. Pre-
cisely in accordance, too, with this state of things,
as it regards the general population of the North
and South, respectively, the Methodist Episcopal
Church has been divided in opinion and feeling on
the subject of slavery and abolition since its or-
ganization in 1784: two separate and distinct
parties have always existed. The Southern Con-
ferences, in agreeing to the main principles of the
compromise law in 1804 and 1816, conceded by
express stipulation their right to resist Northern
interference in any form, upon the condition,
pledged by the North, that while the whole Church,
by common consent, united in proper effort for the
mitigation and final removal of the evil of slavery,
the North was not to interfere, by excluding from
membership or ministerial office in the Church,
persons owning and holding slaves in States where
emancipation is not practicable, and where the
liberated slave is not permitted to enjoy freedom.
Such was the compact of 1804 and 1816, finally
agreed to by the parties after a long and fearful
struggle, and such is the compact now—the proof
336 Organization of the

being derived from history and the testimony of
living witnesses. And is it possible to suppose
that the original purpose and intended application
of the law was not designed to embrace every
member, minister, order, and office of the Method-
ist Episcopal Church? Is the idea of excepted
cases allowable by fair construction of the law?
Do not the reasons and intendment of the law
place it beyond doubt, that every conceivable case
of alleged misconduct that can arise, connected
with slavery or abolition, is to be subjected by
consent and contract of parties to the jurisdiction
of this great conservative arrangement?

Is there any thing in the law or its reasons
creating an exception in the instance of Bishops?
Would the South have entered into the arrange-
ment, or in any form consented to the law, had it
been intimated by the North that Bishops must
be an exception to the rule? Are the virtuous
dead of the North to be slandered by the suppo-
sition that they intended to except Bishops, and
thus accomplished their purposes, in negotiating
with the South, by a resort to deceptive and dis-
honorable means? If Bishops are not named, no
more are Presiding Elders, Agents, Editors—or,
indeed, any other officers of the Church, who are
nevertheless included, although the same rule of
construction would except them also. The enact-
ment was for an entire people, Hast, West, North,
M. E. Church, South. 337

and South. It was for the Church, and every
member of it—for the common weal of the body
—and is, therefore, universal and unrestricted in
its application; and no possible case can be settled
upon any other principles, without a direct viola-
tion of this law both in fact and form. The law
being what we have assumed, any violation of it,
whatever may be its form or mode, is as certainly
a breach of good faith as an infringement of law.
It must be seen, from the manner in which the
compromise was effected, in the shape of a law,
agreed to by equal contracting parties, “the sev-
eral Annual Conferences,” after long and formal
negotiation, that it was not a mere legislative en-
actment, a simple decree of a General Conference,
but partakes of the nature of a grave compact,
and is invested with all the sacredness and sanc-
tions of a solemn treaty, binding respectively the
well-known parties to its terms and stipulations.
If this be so—and with the evidence accessible
who can doubt it?—if this be so, will it prove a
light matter for this General Conference to violate
or disregard the obligation of this legal compromise,
in the shape of public recognized law? Allow
that the present parties in this controversy cannot
be brought to view the subject of the law in ques-
tion in the same light, can such a matter end in a
mere difference of opinion, as it respects the im-

mediate parties? The law exists in the Discipline
15
338 Organization of the

of the Church. The law is known, and its reasons
are known, as equally binding upon both parties,
and what is the likelihood of the imputation of
bad faith under the circumstances? What the
hazard that such imputation, as the decision of
public opinion, it may be from a thousand tribu-
nals, will be brought to bear, with all the light and
force of conviction, upon any act of this body, in
violation of the plain provisions of long-established
law, originating in treaty, and based upon the
principles of conventional compromise?

In proportion to our love of truth, of law, and
order, are we not called upon to pause and weigh
well the hazard, before, as a General Conference,
we incur it beyond change or remedy? The un-
dersigned have long looked to the great conserva-
tive law of the Discipline, on the subject of slavery
and abolition, as the only charter of connectional
union between the North and the South; and
whenever this bond of connection is rendered null
and void, no matter in what form, or by what
means, they are compelled to regard the Church,
to every practical purpose, as already divided,
without the intervention of any other agency.
By how far, therefore, they look upon the union
of the Methodist Episcopal Church as essential to
its prosperity, and the glory and success of Amer-
ican Methodism, by so far they are bound to pro-
test against the late act of the General Conference,
M. E. Church, South. 839

in the irregular suspension of Bishop Andrew, as
not only without law, but in direct contravention
of legal stipulations known to be essential to the
unity of the Church. And they are thus explicit
in a statement of facts, that the responsibility of
division may attach where, in justice, it belongs.
The minority, making this protest, are perfectly
satisfied with the law of the Church affecting
slavery and abolition. They ask no change. They
need—they seek no indulgence in behalf of the
South. Had Bishop Andrew been suspended
according to law, after due form of trial, they
would have submitted without remonstrance, as
the friends of law and order.

They except and protest, farther, against the law-
less procedure, as they think, in the case of Bishop
Andrew, because apart from the injustice done
him and the South by the act, other and graver
difficulties, necessarily incidental to this move-
ment, come in for a share of attention. 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? No question on the subject of slavery and
abolition can be settled until the General Confer-
340 Organization of the

ence shall settle this beyond the possibility of
evasion. In the present crisis, it is the opinion of
the undersigned that every Bishop of the Method-
ist Episcopal Church, and every member of this
General Conference, is especially called upon, by
all the responsibilities of truth and honor, to de-
clare himself upon the subject; and they deem it
proper respectfully and urgently to make such
call a part of this protest. When so much de-
pends upon it, can the General Conference, as the
organ of the supreme authority of the Church,
remain silent without incurring the charge of
trifling both with its interests and reputation?
Law always pledges the public faith of the body
ostensibly governed by it to the faithful assertion
and performance of its stipulations; and the com-
promise law of the Discipline, partaking, as it
does, of the nature of the law of treaty, and em-
bracing, 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 any thing tending to annul the force or
thwart the purposes of its enactment. The only
allowable remedy of those who object to the law is
to seek a constitutional change of the-law, and in
failure, to submit, or else retire from the Church.
All attempts to resist, evade, or defeat the objects
and intended application of the law, until duly
revoked, must be regarded as unjust and revolu-
M. E. Church, South. 34]

tionary, because an invasion of well-defined con-
ventional right. And the undersigned except to
the course of the majority, in the informal prose-
cution of Bishop Andrew and the anomalous quasi
suspension it inflicts, as not only giving to the
compromise a construction rendering it entirely
ineffective, but as being directly subversive of the
great bond of union which has held the North and
South together for the last forty years. Turning
to the confederating Annual Conferences of 1804,
and the vexed and protracted negotiations which
preceded the General Conference of that year, and
finally resulted in the existing law of the Disci-
pline, regulating the whole subject, and glancing at
nearly half a million of Methodists, now in the
South, who have come into the Church with all
their hopes and fears, interests and associations,
their property, character, and influence, reposing
in safety upon the publicly-pledged faith of the
Methodist Episcopal Church, only to be told that
this is all a dream, that a part of what was
pledged was never intended to be allowed, and that
the whole is at all times subject to the discretion
of a dominant majority, claiming, in matter of
right, to be without and above law, competent not
merely to make all rules and regulations for the
proper government of the Church, but to govern
the Church without rule or regulation, and punish
and degrade without even the alleged infringement
342 Organization of the

of law, or the form of trial, if it be thought ex-
‘pedient, presents a state of things filling the un-
dersigned with alarm and dismay. Such views
and facts, without adducing others, will perhaps
be sufficient to show the first and principal ground
occupied by the minority in the protest. They
cannot resist the conviction that the majority have
failed to redeem the pledge of public law given to
the Church and the world by the Methodist Epis-
copal Church.

2d. The undersigned are aware that it is affirmed
by some of the majority, but meanwhile denied
by others, and thus a mooted, unsettled question
among themselves, that the resolution censuring
and virtually suspending Bishop Andrew, as un-
derstood by the minority, is mere matter of ad-
vice or recommendation; but, so far from advising
or recommending any thing, the language of the
resolution, by fair and necessary construction, is
imperative and mandatory in form, and, unquali-
fied by any thing in the resolution itself, or in the
preamble explaining it, conveys the idea plainly
and most explicitly, that it is the judgment and
will of the Conference that Bishop Andrew shall
cease to exercise the office of Bishop until he
shall cease to be the owner of slaves. “Resolved,
That it is the sense of this Conference that he
desist.” That is, having rendered himself unac-
ceptable to the majority, it is their judgment that
M. E. Church, South. 343

he retire from the bench of Bishops, and their field
of action.

No idea of request, advice, or recommendation
is conveyed by the language of the preamble or
resolution; and the recent avowal of an intention
to advise is, in the judgment of the undersigned,
disowned by the very terms in which, it is said,
the advice was given. The whole argument of the
majority, during a debate of twelve days, turned
upon the right of the Conference to displace Bishop
Andrew without resort to formal trial. No one ques-
tioned the legal right of the Conference to advise;
and if this only was intended, why the protracted
debate upon the subject? But farther, a resolu-
tion, respectfully and affectionately requesting the
Bishop to resign, had been laid aside, to entertain
the substitute under notice; a motion, too, to declare
the resolution advisory, was promptly rejected by
the majority; and in view of all these facts, and
the entire proceedings of the majority in the case,
the undersigned have been compelled to consider
the resolution as a mandatory judgment, to the
effect that Bishop Andrew desist from the exercise
of his Episcopal functions. If the majority have
been misunderstood, the language of their own
resolution, and the position they occupied in de-
bate, have led to the misconception; and truth and
honor, not less than a most unfortunate use of lan-
guage, require that they explain themselves.
344 Organization of the

3d. We except to the act of the majority, be-
cause it is assumed that conscience and principle
are involved, and require the act complained of, as
expedient and necessary under the circumstances.
Bishop A. being protected by the law of the
Church having cognizance of all offenses connected
with slavery, such connection in his case, in the
judgment of all jurisprudence, can only be wrong
in the proportion that the law is bad and defective.
It is not conceived by the minority, how conscience
and principle can be brought to bear upon Bishop
A., and not upon the daw, and the Church having
such law. They are obliged to believe that the
law and the source from which it emanates must
become the object of exception and censure before
Bishop A., who has not offended against either,
unless the Church is against the law, can be sub-
jected to trial, at the bar of the conscience and
principles of men who profess subjection and ap-
proval, in the instance both of the law and the
Church.

The undersigned can nevér consent, while we
have a plain law, obviously covering an assumed
offense, that the offense shall be taken, under plea
of principle, out of the hands of the law, and be
resubjected to the conflicting opinions and passions
which originally led to a resort to law, as the only
safe standard of judgment. They do not under-
stand how conscience and principle can attach
M. E. Church, South. 345

grave blame tc action not disapproved. by the law
—express law, too, made and provided in the case
—without extending condemnation to the law
itself, and the body from which it proceeds. The
Church can hardly be supposed to have settled
policy and invariable custom, in contravention of
law; the avowal of such custom and policy, there-
fore, excluding from the Episcopacy any and every
man, in any way connected with slavery, is mere
assumption. No contract, agreement, decree, or
purpose of this kind, is on record, or ever existed.
No such exaction, in terms or by implication, was
ever made by the North or conceded by the South.
No conventional understanding ever existed to
this effect, so far as the South is concerned, or
has been informed. That it has long, perhaps
always, been the purpose of the North not to elect
a slaveholder to the office of Bishop, is admitted.
But as no law gave countenance to any thing of
the kind, the South regarded it as a mere matter
of social injustice, and was not disposed to com-
plain. The North has always found its security
in numbers, and the untrammeled right of suffrage,
and to this the South has not objected. The as-
sumption, however, is entirely different, and is
not admitted by the South, but is plainly negatived
by the law and language of the Discipline, as ex-
plained by authority of the General Conference.

No such concession, beyond peaceable submis-
15*
346 Organization of the

sion to the right of suffrage, exercised by the
majority, will ever be submitted to by the South,
as it would amount to denial of equal abstract
right, and a disfranchisement of the Southern min-
istry, and could not be submitted to without in-
jury and degradation. If, then, the North is not
satisfied with the negative right conceded to the
South by law in this matter, the minority would
be glad to know what principle or policy is likely
to introduce beyond the existing provisions of law.
As the contingency which has occasioned the dif-
ficulty in the case of Bishop Andrew, and to which
every Southern minister is liable at any time, does
not and cannot fall under condemnation of existing
law, and he cannot be punished, nor yet subjected
to any official disability, without an abuse of both
right and power, on the part of this General Con-
ference, the minority are compelled to think that
the majority ought to be satisfied with the con-
sciousness and declaration, that they are in no
way responsible for the contingency, and thus, at
least, allow Bishop Andrew the benefit of their
own legislation, until they see proper to change it.
This attempt by the majority to protect a lawless
prosecution from merited rebuke, by an appeal to
conscience and principle, condemning Bishop An-
drew, while the law and the Church, shielding him
from the assault, are not objected to, is looked
upon by the minority as a species of moral, we

‘
M. E. Church, South. 347

will not say legal casuistry, utterly subversive of
all the principles of order and good government.

Ath. The act of the majority was ostensibly re-
sorted to because, as alleged, the Church in the
Middle and Northern Conferences will not submit
to any, the slightest, connection with slavery. But
if connection with slavery is ruinous to the Church
in the North, that ruin is already wrought. Who
does not know that the very Discipline, laws, and
legislation of the Church necessarily connect us
all with slavery? All our provisional legislation
on the subject has proceeded on the assumption
that slavery is an element of society—a principle
of action—a household reality in the Methodist
Episcopal Church in the United States. It is part
and parcel of the economy of American Method-
ism, in every subjective sense. It has given birth
to law and right, conventional arrangements, nu-
merous missions, and official trusts. Every Bishop,
every minister, every member of the Church, is of
necessity connected with slavery. Each is brother
and co-member, both with slave and master, by the
very laws and organization of the Church.

If, then, connection with slavery is so disas-
trous, the only remedy is to purify the Church by
reorganization, or get out of it as soon as possible.
And would not this aversion to slavery—would
not conscience and principle, so much pleaded in
this controversy—appear much more consistent in
348 Organization of the

every view of the subject, in striking at the root
of the evil, in the organic structure of the Church,
than in seeking its personification in Bishop An-
drew, protected although he be by the law, and
proceeding to punish him, by way of calling off
attention from the known toleration of the same
thing, in other aspects and relations ?

Impelled by conscience and principle to the il-
legal arrest of a Bishop, because he has incident-
ally, by bequest, inheritance, and marriage, come
into possession of slave property, in no instance
intending to possess himself of such property, how
long will conscience and principle leave other min-
isters, or even lay members, undisturbed, who
may happen to be in the same category with
Bishop Andrew? Will assurances be given that
the lawlessness of expediency, controlled, as in
such case it must be, by prejudice and passion,
will extend no farther—that there shall be no
farther curtailment of right as it regards the South-
ern ministry? Yet what is the security of the
South in the case? Is the public faith of this
body, as instanced in the recent violations of the
compromise-law, to be relied upon as the guarantee
for the redemption of the pledge? What would
such pledge or assurance be but to remind the
South that any departure at all from the great
conservative pledge of law, to which we appeal,
was much more effectually guarded against origi-
M. E. Church, South. 349

nally, than it is possible to guard against any sub-
sequent infringement, and to make the South feel
farther that disappointment in the first instance
must compel distrust with regard to the future?
The Church having specific law on the subject, all
questions involving slavery must inevitably, by
intention of law, come within the purview of such
special provision, and cannot be judged of by any
other law or standard, without a most daring de-
parture from all the rules and sobrieties of judi-
cial procedure, and the undersigned accordingly
except to the action of the majority in relation to
Bishop Andrew, as not only without sanction of
law, but in conflict with rights created by law.

5th. As the Methodist Episcopal Church is now
organized, and according to its organization since
1784, the Episcopacy is a codrdinate branch, the
executive department proper of the government.
A Bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church is
not a mere creature—is in no prominent sense an
officer—of the General Conference. The General
Conference, as such, cannot constitute a Bishop.
It is true the Annual Conferences select the Bish-
ops of the Church by the suffrage of their dele-
gates, in General Conference assembled; but the
General Conference, in its capacity of a represent-
ative body, or any other in which it exists, does
not possess the power of ordination, without which
a Bishop cannot be constituted.
300 Organization of the

The Bishops are, beyond a 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 fol-
low that they are subject to the will of that body,
except in conformity with legal right and the pro-
visions of law, in the premises. In this sense,
and so viewed, they are subject to the General
Conference, and this is sufficient limitation of their
power, unless the government itself is to be con-
sidered irregular and unbalanced in the codrdinate
relations of its parts. In asense by no means un-
important, the General Conference is as much the
creature of the Episcopacy, as the Bishops are
the creatures of the General Conference. Consti-
tutionally, 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. And because this is ‘so, what would be
thought of the impertinent pretension, should the
Episcopacy claim that the General Conference is
the mere creature of their will? As executive off-
cers as well as pastoral overseers, the Bishops be-
long to the Church as such, and not to the Gen-
eral Conference as one of its counsels or organs
of action merely.
M. E. Church, South. 361

The General Conference is in no sense the
Church, not even representatively. It is merely
the representative organ of the Church, with lim-
ited powers to do its business, in the discharge of
a delegated trust.

Because Bishops are in part constituted by the
General Conference, the power of removal does
not follow. LEpiscopacy even in the Methodist
Church is not a mere appointment to labor. It is
an official consecrated station under the protection
of law, and can only be dangerous as the law is
bad or the Church corrupt. The power to appoint
does not necessarily involve the power to remove;
and when the appointing power is derivative, as
in the case of the General Conference, the power
of removal does not accrue at all, unless by con-
sent of the codrdinate branches of the government,
expressed by law, made and provided in the case.
When the Legislature of a State—to appeal to
analogy for illustration—appoints a judge, or sen-
ator in Congress, does the judge or senator thereby
become the officer or creature of the Legislature?
or is he the officer or senatorial representative of
the State of which the Legislature is the mere
organ? And does the power of removal follow
that appointment? The answer is negative in
both cases, and applies equally to the Bishops of
the Methodist Episcopal Church, who, instead of
being the officers and creatures of the General Con-
352 Organization of the

ference, are de facto the officers and servants of the
Church, chosen by the General Conference, as its or-
gan of action, and no right of removal accrues, ex-
cept as they fail to accomplish the aims of the Church
in their appointment, and then only in accordance
with the provisions of law. But when a Bishop
is suspended, or informed that it is the wish or will
of the General Conference that he cease to per-
form the functions of Bishop, for doing what the
law of the same body allows him to do, and of
course without incurring the hazard of punish-
ment, or even blame, then the whole procedure
becomes an outrage upon justice, as well as law.
The assumption of power by the General Con-
ference beyond the warrant of law, to which we
object, and against which we protest, will lead, if
carried into practice, to a direct violation of one
of the restrictive rules of the constitution. Sup-
pose it had been the “sense” of this General Con-
ference, when the late communication from the
Bishops was respectfully submitted to the Confer-
ence, that such communication was an interference
with their rights and duties—an attempt to tam-
per with the purity and independence, and there-
fore an outrage upon the claims and dignity, of the
Conference not to be borne with. And, proceed-
ing a step farther, suppose it had been the “sense”
of the Conference that they ai/ desist from per-
forming the functions of Bishops until the “im-
M. E. Church, South. 853

pediment” of such offense had been removed—as-
sume this, (and, so far as mere law is concerned,
no law being violated in either case, it was just as
likely as the movement against Bishop Andrew,)
and had it taken place, what had become of the
general superintendency? If a Bishop of the
Methodist Episcopal Church may, without law,
and at the instance of mere party expediency, be
suspended from the exercise of the appropriate
functions of his office, for one act, he may for an-
other. Admit this doctrine, and by what tenure
do the Bishops hold office? One thing is certain,
whatever other tenure there may be, they do not
hold office according to law.

The provisions of law and the faithful perform-
ance of duty, upon this theory of official tenure,
afford no security. Admit this claim of absolut-
ism, as regards right and power on the part of the
General Conference, and the Bishops of the Meth-
odist Episcopal Church are slaves, and the men
constituting this body their masters and holders.
They are in office only at the discretion of a ma-
jority of the General Conference, without the re-
straints or protection of law. Both the law and
themselves are liable and likely at any time to be
overborne and trampled upon. together, as exem-
plified in the case of Bishop Andrew. If the
doctrine against which we protest be admitted,
the Episcopal office is, at best, but a quadrennial
364 Organization of the

term of service, and the undersigned are compelled
to think that the man who would remain a Bishop,
or allow himself to be made one, under such cir-
cumstances, “desires a good work,” and is pre-
pared for se/f-sacrijice, quite beyond the compre-
hension of ordinary piety.

As it regards Bishop Andrew, if it shall be
made to appear that the action in his case was in-
tended only to advise and request him to desist
from his office, it does not in any way affect the
real or relative character of the movement. When
a body, claiming the right to compel, asks the res-
ignation of an officer, the request is, to all official
and moral purposes, compulsory, as it loads the
officer with disability, and gives notice of assumed
unworthiness, if not criminality. The request has
all the force of a mandate, inasmuch as the officer
is, by such request, compelled either to resign or
remain in office contrary to the known will of the
majority. A simple request, therefore, under the
circumstances supposed, carries with it all the force
of a decree, and is so understood, it is believed,
by all the world.

To request Bishop Andrew to resign, therefore,
in view of all the facts and relations of the case,
was, in the judgment of the minority, to punish
and degrade him; and they maintain that the
whole movement was without authority of law, is
hence of necessity null and void, and, therefore,
M. E. Church, South. 355,

not binding upon Bishop Andrew, or the minority
protesting against it.

6th. We protest against the act of the majority,
instructing Bishop Andrew to desist from the ex-
ercise of his office, not merely on account of the
injustice and evil connecting with the act itself,
but because the act must be understood as the ex-
ponent of principles and purposes, as it regards
the union of the North and South in the Method-
ist Episcopal Church, well-nigh destroying all hope
of its perpetuity. The true position of. the par-
ties in relation to a long-existing conventional ar-
rangement, on the subject of slavery and abolition,
has been fully under notice; and when men of
years and wisdom, experience and learning—men
of no common weight of character, and with a
well-earned aristocracy of Church influence thrown
about them—assume and declare, in action as well
as debate, that what a plain law of the Church—
the only law applicable in the case—sustained and
enforced, too, by an explanatory decree of this
body, at a previous session—decides shall not be a
disqualification for office of any grade in the min-
istry—when such men, the law and decision of
the General Conference notwithstanding, are heard
declaring that what law provides for and protects
nevertheless always has been, and always shail be,
a disqualification, what farther evidence is want-
ing to show that the compromise basis of unoin.
356 Organization of the

from which the South has never swerved, has been
abandoned both by the Northern and Middle Con-
ferences, with a few exceptions in the latter, and
that principles and purposes are entertained by
the majority, driving the South to extreme action,
in defense both of their rights and reputation?
And how far the long train of eventful sequences,
attendant upon the threatened result of division,
may be traceable to the Northern and Middle
Conferences, by the issue thus provoked, is a ques-
tion to be settled not by us, but by our contempo-
raries and posterity.

It is matter of history, with regard to the past,”
and will not be questioned, that now, as formerly,
the South is upon the basis of the Discipline, on
the subject of slavery. The minority believe it
equally certain that this is not true with regard
to the North proper especially. In view, then,
of the unity of the Methodist Episcopal Church,
which party has been, in equity, entitled to the
sympathy and protection of the Middle or umpire
Conferences? those who, through good and evil
report, have kept good faith and adhered to law,
or those whose opinions and purposes have led
them to seek a state of things in advance of law,
and thus dishonor its forms and sanctions ?

7th. In proportion as the minority appreciate
and cling to the unity of the Methodist Episcopal
Church, they are bound farther to except to the
M. E. Church, South. ~ 357

position of the majority in this controversy. Al-
low that Bishop Andrew, without, however, any
infringement of law, is, on account of his connec-
tion with slavery, unacceptable in the Northern
Conferences. It is equally known to the majority
that any Bishop of the Church, either violating,
or submitting to a violation, of the compromise-
charter of union between the North and the South,
without proper and public remonstrance, cannot
be acceptable at the South, and need not appear
there. By pressing the issue in question, there-
fore, the majority virtually dissolve the govern-
ment of the Methodist Episcopal Church, because
in every constitutional aspect it is sundered by so
crippling a codrdinate branch of it as to destroy
the itinerant general superintendency altogether.
Whenever it is clearly ascertained that the com-
promise-law of the Church, regulating slavery and
abolition, is abandoned, every Bishop, each of the
venerable and excellent men who now adorn the
Church and its councils, ceases to be a general su-
perintendent. The law of union, the principle of
gravitation, binding us together, is dissolved, and
the general superintendency of the Methodist
Episcopal Church is no more!

8th. The South have not been led thus to pro-
test merely because of the treatment received by
Bishop Andrew, or the kindred action of this body
in other matters. The. abandonment of the com-
358 Organization of the

promise—the official refusal by the majority, as
we have understood them, to abide the arbitrament
of law, is their principal ground of complaint and
remonstrance. If the minority have not entirely
misunderstood the majority, the abolition and anti-
slavery principles of the North will no longer al-
low them to submit to the law of the Discipline
on the general subject of slavery and abolition ;
and if this be so, if the compromise-law be either
repealed or allowed to remain a dead letter, the
South cannot submit, and the absolute necessity of
division is already dated. And should the exigent
circumstances in which the minority find them-
selves placed, by the facts and developments al-
luded to in this remonstrance, render it finally nec-
essary that the Southern Conferences should have
a separate, independent existence, it is hoped that
the character and services of the minority, to-
gether with the numbers and claims of the minis-
try and membership of the portion of the Church
represented by them, not less than similar reasons
and considerations on the part of the Northern and
Middle Conferences, will suggest the high moral
fitness of meeting this great emergency with strong
and steady purpose to do justice to all concerned.
And it is believed that, approaching the subject
in this way, it will be found practicable to devise
and adopt such measures and arrangements, pres-
ent and prospective, as will secure an amicable
M. E. Church, South. 359

division of the Church upon the broad principles
of right and equity, and destined to result in the
common good of the great body of ministers and
members found on either side the line of separation.

Signed by the following delegates, viz. :

Kentucky Conference—H. B. Bascom, William
Gunn, H. H. Kavanaugh, Edward Stevenson, B.
T. Crouch, G. W. Brush.

Missouri —W. W. Redman, William Patton, J.
C. Berryman, J. M. Jameson.

Holston —E. F. Sevier, S. Patton, Thomas
Strinefield.

Tennessee.—Robert Paine, John: B. McFerrin,
A. L. P. Green, T. Maddin.

North Carolna.—B. T. Blake, James Jameson,
Peter Doub.

Ohio.—E. W. Sehon.

Memphis —G. W. D. Harris, 8. 8. Moody, W.
McMahon, Thomas Joyner.

Arkansas.—John C. Parker, William P. Rat-
cliffe, Andrew Hunter.

Virginia. — John Early, T. Crowder, W. A.
Smith, Leroy M. Lee.

Mississippi.—William Winans, B. M. Drake,
John Lane, G. M. Rogers.

Philadelphia.—I. T. Cooper, W. Cooper, T. I.
Thompson, Henry White.

Texas.—Littleton Fowler.
360 Organization of the

Iitinois —N. G. Berryman, J. Stamper.

Alabama.—Jesse Boring, Jefferson Hamilton,
W. Murrah, G. Garrett.

Georgia—G. F. Pierce, William J. Parks, L.
Pierce, J. W. Glenn, J. E. Evans, A. B. Longstreet.

South Carolina.—W. Capers, William M. Wight-
man, Charles Betts, 8. Dunwody, H. A. C. Walker.

New Jersey—T. Sovereign, T. Neal.

New York, June 6, 1844.

Mr. Simpson offered a resolution to the follow-
ing effect: That while they could not admit the
statements put forth in the Protest, yet, as a mat-
ter of courtesy, they would allow it to be placed
on the journal; and that a committee, consisting
of Messrs. Durbin, Olin, and Hamline, be ap-
pointed to make a true statement of the case, to
be entered on the journal.

Dr. Winans objected to the word “courtesy.”
The minority asked no courtesy at the hands of
the majority. They demanded it as a right. The
chair decided that the first part of the resolution
was not in order, as a minority had a right to have
their Protest entered on the journal. In this de-
cision two of his colleagues concurred, and one
dissented.

Several members here rose to points of order.

Mr. Simpson withdrew the first part of his res-
olution, and the remainder was then adopted.
M. E. Church, South. 361

On motion, the special committee of nine were
allowed to retire.

The Committee appointed by the General Con-
ference to reply to the Protest of the Minority,
performed their work and presented their report
on the 10th of June.

At the close of the General Conference, before
leaving New York, Dr. Bascom, by whom the
Protest was written, gave notice, through the
papers of the Church, of his intention to review
at his convenience the Reply of Drs. Durbin,
Peck, and Elliott, to the Protest of the Minority
of the General Conference. This review, under
the title of “Methodism and Slavery,” made its
appearance just previous to the Louisville Conven-
tion, and met with a wide circulation. An edition
of six thousand copies was sold in a few days.
“This powerful production made a strong impres-
sion favorable to the cause of the Church, South,
which was strongly seconded by the clear and able
Report of the Committee of the Louisville Con-
vention on a Southern Organization, drawn up by
the same hand.

“Dr. Bascom’s Review was replied to by Dr.
Peck, one of the Committee who replied to the
Protest, and Editor of the Methodist Quarterly
Review. This attempt to answer the clear rea-
soning of Dr. Bascom’s work, was a remarkable

failure. The work of Dr. Peck abounds in special
16
oO

362 Organization of the

pleading—imputes to the South doctrines never
entertained by it or Dr. Bascom, and advocates at
length opinions never broached until the General
Conference of 1844, as the orthodox doctrines of
Methodism.”

“The action of the Conference had involved
the Bishops in a perplexing difficulty. The
Conference had declared it the sense of the
body that Bishop Andrew should cease to exer-
cise the functions of his office; but the resolution
was so conveniently ambiguous, that while on the
one hand Mr. Hamline had pronounced it ‘a
mandamus measure, whose passage would aBso-
LUTELY suspend the exercise of the superintendent's
Junctions, until he complied with the prescribed con-
dition—the power to do which was the same with
that required to suspend or depose a Bishop’—on
the other hand, Dr. Durbin said that the resolu-
tion ‘only proposed to express the sense of this
Conference in regard to the matter which it cannot,
in duty and conscience, pass by without a suitable
expression; and having made the solemn expres-
sion, it leaves Bishop Andrew to act as fzs sense
of duty shall dictate.” THe even said, that if any
man should charge him, in voting for the resolu-
tion, (the mandamus measure of absolute suspen-
sion of Mr. Hamline,) with voting to depose Bishop
Andrew, he would consider it a personal insult.
Now, it became the duty of the Bishops to make
M. E. Church, South. 363

out and publish their plan of Episcopal visitation
for the succeeding four years, at the close of the
General Conference; and if the construction of
the Hamline section was correct, Bishop Andrew
was ‘absolutely suspended, and of course could
not be taken into the plan of Episcopal labor; but
if the Durbin section of the party was right, then
the General Conference having expressed its sense
of the matter, left Bishop Andrew perfectly free
to be governed by Avs sense of duty, and of course
there was nothing to prevent his: being rendered
available in the Episcopacy. In this state of con-
flicting opinions among the Northern leaders, the
Bishops found it necessary to apply again to the
oracle for a less equivocal response; for act as
they might, they must come into conflict with one
or other division of the majority. They therefore
addressed to the General Conference the follow-
ing inquiries:

“*To the General Conference:

“Reverend and Dear Brethren:—As the case
of Bishop Andrew unavoidably involves the future
action of the superintendents, which in their judg-
ment, in the present position of the Bishop,
they have no discretion to decide upon, they
respectfully request of the General Conference
oficial instruction, in answer to the following
questions:
364 Organization of the

“<<First. Shall Bishop Andrew’s name remain as
it now stands in the Minutes, Hymn-book, and
Discipline, or shall it be struck off these official
records?

“<Second. How shall the Bishop obtain his sup-
port? as provided for in the form of Discipline, or
in some other way?

“<Third. What work, if any, may the Bishop
perform? and how shall he be appointed to the
work?

“< Josnua SovLE,
“<HrgaAH HEDDING,
“¢ BrvERLY WAUGH,
“<T Hos. A. Morris.’

“To these inquiries the Conference returned the
following answer:

“<< Resolved, Ist. As the sense of this Conference,
That Bishop Andrew’s name stand in the Minutes,
Hymn-book, and Discipline, as formerly.

“¢Resolved, 2d. That the rule in reference to
the support of a Bishop and his family, applies to
Bishop Andrew.

“¢Resolved, 3d. That whether in any, and in
what work, Bishop Andrew be employed, is to be
determined by his own decision and action, in re-
lation to the previous action of this Conference in
his case.’ ,

“The first of these resolutions was adopted by
M. E. Church, South. 365

a vote of 155 to 17, none voting against it but
ultra northerners or abolitionists.

“The second resolution was adopted by a vote
of 152 to 14. ;

“On the third, the grand mystifying resolution,
which placed the matter just where it was before,
the vote stood as follows:

“Yeas.—Nathan Bangs, Phineas Rice, George
Peck, John B. Stratten, Peter P. Sandford, Fitch
Reed, Samuel D. Ferguson, Stephen Martindale,
Marvin Richardson, J. Lovejoy, F. Upham, 8.
Benton, Paul Townsend, J. Porter, D. S. King,
P. Crandall, C. Adams, G. Pickering, M. Hill, E.
Robinson, D. B. Randall, C. W. Morse, J. Hobart,
Heman Nickerson, G. Webber, Elihu Scott, S.
Chamberlain, Samuel Kelley, J. Perkins, J.
Spaulding, C. D. Cahoon, William D. Cass, Tru-
man Seymour, James Covel, Tobias Spicer, Sey-
mour Coleman, James B. Houghtaling, Jesse T.
Peck, A. D. Peck, A. Adams, G. Baker, W. W.
Ninde, J. M. Snyder, 8. Comfort, N. Rounds, D.
A. Shepherd, H. F. Row, E. Bowen, D. Holmes,
G. Fillmore, 8. Luckey, A. Steele, F. G. Hibbard,
A. Abell, W. Hosmer, J. B. Alverson, J. S. Stead-
man, John Bain, G. W. Clarke, J. Robinson, T.
Goodwin, William Hunter, H. J. Clark, J. Spen-
cer, 8. Elliott, 8. Wakefield, J. Drummond, C.
Elliott, William H. Raper, J. M. Trimble, J. B.
Finley, L. L. Hamline, Z. Connell, J. H. Power,

 
366 Organization of the

A. Poe, E. Yocum, W. Runnells, E. Crane, A.
Billings, J. A. Baughman, M. Simpson, A. Wiley,
E. R. Ames, J. Miller, C. W. Ruter, A. Wood, A.
Eddy, J. Havens, B. Weed, H. W. Reed, J. T.
Mitchell, P. Akers, P. Cartwright, A. Griffith, J.
Bear, N. J. B. Morgan, J. A. Collins, J. Davis, J.
P. Durbin, L. Scott, I. Winner, J. S. Porter, J.
K. Shaw—103.

“Nays.—C. W. Carpenter, John G. Dow, R.
Boyd, G. Smith, J. Stamper, J. Van Cleve, N. G.
Berryman, W. W. Redman, J. C. Berryman, J. M.
Jameson, H. B. Bascom, W. Gunn, H. H. Kava-
naugh, E. Stevenson, B. T. Crouch, G. W. Brush,
E. F. Sevier, S. Patton, T. Stringfield, R. Paine,
J. B. McFerrin, A. L. P. Green, T. Maddin, G.
W. D. Harris, S. S. Moody, William McMahon, T.
Joyner, J. C. Parker, W. P. Ratcliffe, A. Hunter,
L. Fowler, William Winans, B. M. Drake, J. Lane,
G. M. Rogers, William Murrah, J. Boring, G.
Garrett, J. Hamilton, G. F. Pierce, L. Pierce, W.
J. Parks, J. W. Glenn, J. E. Evans, A. B. Long-
street, William Capers, W. M. Wightman, C. Betts,
8S. Dunwody, H. A. C. Walker, Peter Doub, B. T.
Blake, J. Early, L. M. Lee, W. A. Smith, T.
Crowder, H. Slicer, C. B. Tippett, T. B. Sargent,
J. A. Gere, G. Hildt, T. J. Thompson, H. White,
I. T. Cooper, W. Cooper, T. Neal, T. Sovereign
—67.

“This resolution allowed one party at the North
M. E. Church, South. 367

still to regard the action of the General Confer-
ence as mandatory, and the other to consider it
merely advisory. And up to the present time not
the smallest advance has been made toward any
settled or agreed understanding on the part of the
majority, as to the true nature and intention of
the action against Bishop Andrew.”

On the 7th of June, Dr. Paine, chairman of the
select committee of nine, reported the following
Plan of Separation:

“The select committee of nine to consider and
report on the Declaration of the delegates from
the Conferences of the slaveholding States, beg
leave to submit the following report:

“Whereas, a declaration has been presented to
this General Conference, with the signatures of
Jifty-one delegates of the body, from thirteen An-
nual Conferences in the slaveholding States, rep-
resenting that, for various reasons enumerated,
the objects and purposes of the Christian min-
istry and Church organization cannot be suc-
cessfully accomplished by them under the juris-
diction of this General Conference as now consti-
tuted; and

“‘ Whereas, in the event of a separation, a con-
tingency to which the Declaration asks attention
as not improbable, we esteem it the duty of this
General Conference to meet the emergency with
368 Organization of the

Christian kindness and the strictest equity; there-
fore,

“Resolved, by the delegates of the several An-
nual Conferences in General Conference assembled,

“Ist. That, should the delegates from the Con-
ferences in the slaveholding States find it neces-
sary to unite in a distinct ecclesiastical Connec-
tion, the following rule shall be observed with
regard to the Northern boundary of such Con-
nection: All the Societies, Stations, and Confer-
ences adhering to the Church in the South, by
a vote of a majority of the members of said
Societies, Stations, and Conferences, shall re-
main under the unmolested pastoral care of the
Southern Church; and the ministers of the
Methodist Episcopal Church shall in nowise at-
tempt to organize Churches or Societies within
the limits of the Church, South, nor shall they
attempt to exercise any pastoral oversight therein;
it being understood that the ministry of the South
reciprocally observe the same rule in relation to
Stations, Societies, and Conferences adhering, by
vote of a majority, to the Methodist Episcopal
Church; provided also that this rule shall apply
only to Societies, Stations, and Conferences bor-
dering on the line of division, and not to interior
charges, which shall in all cases be left to the care
of that Church within whose territory they are
situated.
M. E. Church, South. 369

“2d. That ministers, local and traveling, of
every grade and office in the Methodist Episcopal
Church, may, as they prefer, remain in that Church,
or, without blame, attach themselves to the Church,
South.

“3d. Resolved, by the delegates of all the Annual
Conferences in General Conference assembled, That
we recommend to all the Annual Conferences, at
their first approaching sessions, to authorize a
change of the sixth restrictive article, so that the
first clause shall read thus: ‘They shall not ap-
propriate the produce of the Book Concern, nor
of the Chartered Fund, to any purpose other than
for the benefit of the traveling, supernumerary, su-
perannuated, and worn-out preachers, their wives,
widows and children, and to such other purposes
as may be determined upon by the votes of two-
thirds of the members of the General Conference.’

“Ath. That whenever the Annual Conferences,
by a vote of three-fourths of all their members
voting on the third resolution, shall have concurred
in the recommendation to alter the sixth restric-
tive article, the Agents at New York and Cincin-
nati shall, and they are hereby authorized and
directed to deliver over to any authorized agent
or appointee of the Church, South, should one be
authorized, all notes and book accounts against the
ministers, Church-members, or citizens within its

boundaries, with authority to collect the same for
16*
370 Organization of the

the sole use of the Southern Church, and that said
agents also convey to the aforesaid agent or ap-
pointee of the South, all the real estate, and as-
sign to him all the property, including presses,
stock, and all_right and interest connected with
the printing establishments at Charleston, Rich-
mond, and Nashville, which now belong to the
Methodist Episcopal Church.

“Sth. That when the Annual Conferences shall
have approved the aforesaid change in the sixth
restrictive article, there shall be transferred to the
above agent of the Southern Church so much of
the capital and produce of the Methodist Book
Concern as will, with the notes, book accounts,
presses, etc., mentioned in the last resolution, bear
the same proportion to the whole property of said
Concern that the traveling preachers in the South-
ern Church shall bear to all the traveling minis-
ters of the Methodist Episcopal Church; the di-
vision to be made on the basis of the number of
traveling preachers in the forthcoming Minutes.

“6th. That the above transfer shall be in the
form of annual payments of $2,500 per annum,
and specifically in stock of the Book Concern, and
in Southern notes and accounts due the establish-
ment, and accruing after the first transfer men-
tioned above; and until all the payments are made,
the Southern Church shall share in all the net
profits of the Book Concern, in the proportion
M. E. Church, South. ail

that the amount due them, or in arrears, bears to
all the property of the Concern.

“7th. That be and they are hereby ap-
pointed commissioners to act in concert with the
same number of commissioners appointed by the
Southern Organization, (should one be formed,) to
estimate the amount which will fall due to the
South by the preceding rule, and to have full
powers to carry into effect the whole arrangements
proposed with regard to the division of property,
should the separation take place. And if by any
means a vacancy occurs in this Board of Commis-
sioners, the Book Committee at New York shall
fill said vacancy.

“8th. That whenever any agents of the South-
ern Church are clothed with legal authority or
corporate power to act in the premises, the agents
at New York are hereby authorized and directed
to act in concert with said Southern agents, so as
to give the provisions of these resolutions a legally
binding force.

“9th. That all the property of the Methodist
Episcopal Church in meeting-houses, parsonages,
colleges, schools, Conference-funds, cemeteries, and
of every kind within the limits of the Southern
Organization, shall be forever free from any claim
set up on the part of the Methodist Episcopal
Church, so far as this resolution can be of force
in the premises.

 
372 Organization of the

“10th. That the Church so formed in the South
shall have a common property in all the copy-
rights in possession of the Book Concern at New
York and Cincinnati, at the time of the settlement
by the commissioners.

‘Resolved, That the Bishops be respectfully re-
quested to lay that part of this report requiring
the action of the Annual Conferences before them
as soon as possible, beginning with the New York
Conference. Rosert Paine, Chairman.

“New York, June 7, 1844.”

Dr. Elliott moved the adoption of the report.
He said: He had had the opportunity of exam-
ining it, and had done so narrowly. He believed
it would insure the purposes designed, and would
be for the best interests of the Church. It was
his firm opinion that this was a proper course for
them to pursue, in conformity with the Scriptures,
and the best analogies they could collect from the
ancient Churches, as well as from the best-organ-
ized modern Churches. All history did not fur-
nish an example of so large a body of Christians
remaining in such close and unbroken connection
as the Methodist Episcopal Church. It was now
found necessary to separate this large body, for it
was becoming unwieldy. He referred to the
Churches at Antioch, at Alexandria, at Jerusalem,
which, though they continued as one, were at
M. E. Church, South. 373

least as distinct as the Methodist Episcopal Church
would be if the suggested separation took place.
The Church of England was one under the Bishops
of Canterbury and York, connected and yet dis-
tinct. In his own mind it had been for years per-
fectly clear that to this conclusion they must
eventually come. Were the question that now
unhappily agitated the body dead and buried,
there would be good reason for passing the resolu-
tions contained in that report. As to their repre-
sentation in that General Conference, one out of
twenty was but a meager representation, and to
go on as they had done, it would soon be one out
of thirty. And the body was now too large to do
business advantageously. The measure contem-
plated was not schism, but separation for their mu-
tual convenience and prosperity.

Dr. Paine said the committee wished a verbal
alteration made. In the fifth resolution “preach-
ers” were spoken of in the Southern Church, and
“ministers” in the Northern. Nothing was said
there of the Chartered Fund—the committee had
prepared the following additional resolution to
meet the omission :

“12. Resolved, That the Book Agents at New
York be directed to make such compensation to
the Conferences South for their dividend from the
Chartered Fund as the commissioners to be pro-
vided for shall agree upon.”
374 Organization of the

Speeches were made in opposition to the report
by Messrs. Griffith, Cartwright, and Sandford,
and in its favor by Drs. Bangs, Paine, and Luckey,
and Messrs. Fillmore, Finley, Hamline, Collins,
and Porter.

During the pending of the discussion, Dr. Paine
moved to insert the word “Conferences,” instead
of “delegates,” in the first resolution, which was
agreed to. In the afternoon session of the same
day, the report was taken up and each resolution
voted on separately. The first resolution was
adopted by a vote of 142 to 22; and after the
change suggested by Dr. Paine, inserting Con-
ferences instead of delegates to decide on the
necessity of a separation, the vote was again taken,
and stood ayes 135, noes 15. The second resolu-
tion was adopted by 136 in the affirmative to 7 in
the negative; the third resolution by 147 to 10; the
fifth resolution by 153 ayes to 13 noes; and the
remainder with the preamble, without a division.

Dr. Bangs then moved that the blank in the
seventh resolution be filled, and Dr. Bangs, Dr.
Peck, and James B. Finley were appointed as
commissioners on the part of the General Confer-
ence. The report was then adopted as a whole.

On the 10th of June the Conference adjourned
sine die. It was the last General Conference in
which the Representatives of the two sections
ever met. The separation was final.
M. £. Church, South. 375

CHAPTER V.

The Meeting of the Southern Delegates in New York—Plan
of action recommended to the Annual Conferences—Their
Address to the members of the Church in the Slavehold-
ing States and Territories—Excitement throughout the
Church—Resolutions adopted in Virginia, in Alabama,
in North Carolina, in South Carolina, in Georgia, in Lou-
isiana, in Tennessee, in Kentucky—Dr. Elliott advocates
Division—The action of the several Annual Conferences
—Bishop Andrew’s position—Letter from Bishop Soule
to Bishop Andrew--Letter from Bishop Soule in reply to
Dr. Bond—Communication from the College of Bishops.

Wuen the General Conference of 1844 ad-
journed, there was probably not a member of the
body who entertained any hope of the continued
unity of the Church, under one jurisdiction. As
we have already seen, impressed with the belief,
that the interests of Methodism in the South would
demand a separate organization, provision was
made not only for the formation of “a distinct
ecclesiastical Connection” of the Conferences in
the slaveholding States, under the jurisdiction of
a Southern General Conference, but also defining
376 Organization of the

the status of societies, stations, and Conferences
on the border, both North and South. In order
to preserve the unity of the Church on the border,
it had been agreed that “all the societies, stations,
and Conferences, adhering to the Church, South,
by a majority of the members of said societies,
stations, and Conferences, shall remain under the
unmolested pastoral care of the Southern Church ;
and the ministers of the M. E. Church shall, in
nowise, attempt to organize Churches or societies
within the limits of the Church, South.” This
rule was to be reciprocal.

Provision was also made for an equitable division
of the Book Concerns in New York and Cincinnati,
and the Chartered Fund, and at the same time se-
curing to the Southern Church “all the property
of the Methodist Episcopal Church in meeting-
houses, parsonages, colleges, schools, Conference
funds, cemeteries, and of every kind within the
limits of the Southern organization,” making these
“forever free from any claim set up on the part
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, so far as this
resolution can be of force in the premises.” We
éannot but admire the sense of justice, as well as
the spirit which prompted it, by which the ma-
jority were influenced in the adoption of the Plan
of Separation, by which the rights of the South
were secured. It was worthy such a body of
Christian ministers.
M. LE. Church, South. 377

Tt is true that the obligation to carry out these
resolutions depended upon the necessity of the
organization of the Conferences in the slavehold-
ing States into a separate ecclesiastical jurisdic-
tion. This necessity, however, was left to be de-
termined by the judgment of the Annual Confer-
ences in the Southern and South-western States.
They alone were to be the umpires in deciding
this question. As the best method of ascertain-
ing the sense of the several Annual Conferences,
before leaving New York, the Southern dele-
gates held a meeting for consultation, at which
they adopted the following plan of action, to be
recommended to the Conferences they represented :

“With a view to promote uniformity of action
in the premises, we beg leave to submit to your
consideration the expediency of concurring in the
following plan of procuring the judgment of the
Church within the slaveholding States, as to the
propriety of organizing a Southern division of the
Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States,
and of effecting such an organization should it be
deemed necessary :

“1. There shall be a Convention held in Louis-
ville, Kentucky, to commence the lst May, 1845,
composed of delegates from the several Annual
Conferences within the slaveholding States, ap-
pointed in the ratio of one for every eleven mem-
bers.
378 Organization of the

“2. These’ delegates shall be appointed at the
ensuing session of the several Annual Conferences
enumerated, each Conference providing for the
expenses of its own delegates.

“3. These several Annual Conferences shall
instruct their delegates to the proposed Conven-
tion on the points on which action is contemplated
—conforming their instructions, as far as possible,
to the opinions and wishes of the membership
within their several Conference bounds.

“W. Winans, Ch’n.

“New York, June 11, 1844.”

They also sent abroad the following Address :

“To the Ministers and Members of the Methodist Episcopal

Church in the Slaveholding States and Territories :

“ The undersigned, delegates in the late General
Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church,
from thirteen Annual Conferences in slaveholding
States and Territories, would most respectfully
represent—that the various action of the majority
of the General Conference, at its recent session,
on the subject of slavery and abolition, has been
such as to render it necessary, in the judgment of
those addressing you, to call attention to the pro-
scription and disability under which the Southern
portion of the Church must of necessity labor in
view of the action alluded to, unless some meas-
M. E. Church, South. 379

ures are adopted to free the minority of the South
from the oppressive jurisdiction of the majority in
the North, in this respect.

“The proceedings of the majority, in several
cases, involving the question of slavery, have been
such as indicate most conclusively that the legis-
lative, judicial, and administrative-action of the
General Conference, as now organized, will always
be extremely hurtful, if not finally ruinous, to the
interests of the Southern portion of the Church;
and must necessarily produce a state of conviction
and feeling in the slaveholding States, entirely in-
consistent with either the peace or prosperity of
the Church.

“The opinions and purposes of the Church in
the North on the subject of slavery, are in direct
conflict with those of the South; and unless the
South will submit to the dictation and interference
of the North, greatly beyond what the existing
law of the Church on slavery and abolition au-
thorizes, there is no hope of any thing like union
or harmony. The debate and action of the Gen-
eral Conference in the case of the Rev. Mr. Hard-
ing, of the Baltimore Conference; the debate and
action in the case of Bishop Andrew; and the
opinions and purposes avowed and indicated in a
manifesto of the majority, in reply to a protest
from the minority against the proceedings com-
plained of, together with hundreds of petitions
380 Organization of the

from the East, North, and West, demanding that
slavery, in all its possible forms, be separated from
the Church; these, and similar demonstrations,
have convinced the undersigned that they cannot
remain silent or inactive without hazard and in-
justice to the different portions of the Church
they represent.

“They have, therefore, thought proper to in-
voke the attention of the Church in the South to
a state of things they are compelled to regard as
worthy the immediate notice and action of the
Church throughout all the slaveholding States and
Territories. The subject of slavery and abolition,
notwithstanding the plain law of the Discipline
on the subject, was agitated and debated in the
late General Conference for jive successive weeks ;
and even at the very close of the session, the as-
pect of things was less satisfactory and more
threatening to the South than at any former pe-
riod ; and under such circumstances of mutual dis-
trust and disagreement, the General Conference
adjourned.

“Some time before the adjournment, however,
upon a declaration made by the Southern delega-
tions, setting forth the impossibility of enduring
such a state of things much longer, the General
Conference, by a very large and decided majority,
agreed to a plan of formal and pacific separation,
by which the Southern Conferences are to have a
M. E. Church, South. 381

distinct and independent organization of their own,
in no way subject to Northern jurisdiction. It
affords us pleasure to state that there were those
found among the majority who met this proposi-
tion with every manifestation of justice and liber-
ality. And should a similar spirit be exhibited
by the Annual Conferences in the North, when
submitted to them, as provided for in the plan
itself, there will remain no legal impediment to its
peaceful consummation.

“This plan is approved by the undersigned as
the best, and, indeed, all that can be done at pres-
ent, in remedy of the great evil under which we
labor. Provision is made for a peaceable and con-
stitutional division of Church-property of every
kind. The plan does not decide that division
shall take place; but simply, and it is thought se-
curely, provides that it may, if it be found neces-
sary. Of this necessity you are to be the judges,
after a careful survey and comparison of all the
reasons for and against it.

“As the undersigned have had opportunity and
advantages which those at a distance could not
possess, to form a correct judgment in the prem-
ises, and it may be expected of them that they
express their views fully on the subject, they do
not hesitate to say that they regard a separation
at no distant day as inevitable; and farther, that
the plan of separation agreed upon is as eligible
382 Organization of the

as the Southern Conferences have any right to ex-
pect at any time. We most respectfully, there-
fore, and with no common solicitude, beseech our
brethren of the ministry and membership in the
slaveholding States, to examine this matter care-
fully, and weighing it well in all its bearings, try
to reach the conclusion most proper under the cir-
cumstances. Shall that which, in all moral likeli-
hood, must take place soon, be attempted now, or
are there reasons why it should be postponed?

“We deprecate all excitement; we ask you to
be calm and collected, and to approach and dispose
of the subject with all the candor and forbearance
the occasion demands. The separation proposed
is not schism, it is not secession. It is-a State or
family, separating into two different States or
families, by mutual consent. As the ‘ Methodist
Episcopal Church’ will be found North of the di-
viding line, so the ‘ Methodist Episcopal Church’
will be found South of the same line.

“The undersigned have clung to the cherished
unity of the Church with a firmness of purpose
and force of feeling which nothing but invincible
necessity could subdue. If, however, nominal
unity must coéxist with unceasing strife and alien-
ated feeling, what is likely to be gained by its per-
petuation ? Every minister and member of the
Church in slaveholding States must perceive at
once that the constant, not to say interminable,
M. E. Church, South. 383

agitation of the slavery and abolition question in
the councils of the Church, and elsewhere, must
terminate in incalculable injury to all the South-
ern Conferences. Our access to slave and master
is, toa great extent, cut off. The legislation of
the Church in conflict with that of the State—
Church-policy attempting to control public opinion
and social order—must generate an amount of hos-
tility to the Church, impossible to be overcome,
and slowly but certainly to diminish both the
means and the hope of usefulness and extension
on the part of the Church.

“Disposed, however, to defer to the judgment
of the Church, we leave this subject with you.
Our first and most direct object has been to bring
it fully before you, and, giving you an opportunity
to judge and determine for yourselves, await your

(decision. The minority from the South, in the
late General Conference, were most anxious to
adjourn the decision in the case of Bishop An-
drew, with all its attendant results, to the Annual
Conferences and to the Church at large, to con-
sider and decide upon during the next four years
—as no charge was presented against the Bishop,
and especially as this measure was urgently rec-
ommended by the whole bench of Bishops; although
Bishop Hedding subsequently withdrew his name.
The proposition, however, to refer the whole sub-
ject to the Church, was promptly rejected by the
384 Organization of the

majority, and immediate action demanded and had.
But as all the facts connected with the equivocal
suspension of Bishop Andrew will come before
you in other forms, it is unnecessary to detail
them in this brief address, the main object of
which is to place before you, in a summary way,
the principal facts and reasons connected with the
proposed separation of the Southern Conferences
into a distinct organization.

“Adopted at a meeting of the Southern dele-
gations, held in New York, at the close of the
General Conference, June 11th, 1844, and ordered
to be published.

“Signed on behalf of the Kentucky, Missouri,
Holston, Tennessee, North Carolina, Memphis,
Arkansas, Virginia, Mississippi, Texas, Alabama,
Georgia, and South Carolina Annual Confer-
ences.

“Kentucky Conference.—H. B. Bascom, William
Gunn, H. H. Kavanaugh, Edward Stevenson, B.
T. Crouch, G. W. Brush.

“ Missourt.—W.W. Redman, William Patton, J.
C. Berryman, J. M. Jameson.

“Holston. F. Sevier, 8. Patton, Thomas
Stringfield.

“Tennessee.—Robert Paine, John B. McFerrin,
A. L. P. Green, T. Maddin.

“North Carolna.—B. T. Blake, James Jameson,
Peter Doub.
M. LE. Church, South. 385

“Memphis.—G. W. D. Harris, 8. 8. Moody, W
McMahon, Thomas Joyner.

“Arkansas.—John C. Parker, William P. Rat-
cliffe, Andrew Hunter.

“Virgma—John Karly, T. Crowder, W. A.
Smith, Leroy M. Lee.

“Mississippi—William Winans, B. M. Drake,
John Lane, G. M. Rogers.

“Texas.—Littleton Fowler.

“Alabama.—Jesse Boring, Jefferson Hamilton,
W. Murrah, G. Garrett.

“Georgia—G. F. Pierce, William J. Parks, L
Pierce, J. W. Glenn, J. E. Evans, A. B. Long-
street.

“South Carolina.—W. Capers, William M. Wight-
man, Charles Betts, S. Dunwody, H. A. C.
Walker.”

It must not be understood that during the pend-
ing of the action in the case of Bishop Andrew,
the Church in the South was indifferent. The
assertion so frequently made, that the popular
mind of the South was inflamed by the delegates
on their return from the General Conference, and
that but for their appeals to passions easily aroused,
there would have been no dissatisfaction among
the people, is not sustained by the facts in the
case.

Previous to the adjournment of the General
17
386 Organization of the

Conference, and before the action in the case of
Bishop Andrew was known, primary meetings were
held in different portions of the South, expressing
the greatest dissatisfaction at the arrest of his offi-
cial character.

On the Chesterfield Circuit, in the Virginia Con-
ference, a meeting was held at Damascus Church,
on the 8th of June, where several resolutions
were adopted condemnatory of the course of the
General Conference; among them the follow-
ing :— ‘

“Resolved, That while we deeply and sincerely
sympathize in the wounded feelings of our much-
loved Bishop Andrew, we solemnly contemn the
principles, and hold in sovereign contempt the men
who can, reckless of consequences, urge such princi-
ples against the spirit and letter of our excellent
Book of Discipline, in the attempt to degrade from
his office the man who, in spite of men and devils,
has filled to the full the high prerogatives of the
Episcopal chair, and whom every Southern Meth-
odist delights to respect, honor, and obey.”

In Russell county, Alabama, on the same day,
the following resolutions were adopted at a meet-
ing not assembled for religious purposes :

“Resolved, That this meeting has witnessed, with
intense interest and painful anxiety, the agitation
of the slave question in the General Conference of
the Methodist Episcopal Church, now convened in
M. E. Church, South. 387

the city of New York. They have seen that a
topic, which hitherto has excited the bad passions
of man only in the orgies of fanaticism, or in the
strife of factions in their unprincipled struggle for
political power, has been transferred to the foot of
that throne which ought to be sacred to charity,
peace, and good-will among brethren of the same
faith. They have beheld, with unutterable indig-
nation, the humiliating fact of a Bishop of the
State of Georgia, eminent for his piety, learning,
ability, and Christian virtues, put, in effect, upon
his trial as a culprit, for the alleged sin of marry-
ing a lady possessed of slaves, by which it is in-
sultingly affirmed, that a slaveholder is an unfit
teacher of the word of God, and must submit, if
tolerated as a member of the Church of Christ, to
a subordinate station in the ministry—a discrimi-
nation which finds no warrant in the sacred ora-
cles of God, and which involves both insult and
outrage to the people of an entire section of this
Union.
“Be it farther resolved, That if Bishop Andrew
should be deposed from his Episcopal functions,
we earnestly invoke the clergy of the Methodist
Episcopal Church, at the South, to take immediate
measures for their secession from a Conference
which has placed so gross a stigma not only on
themselves, but on their respective flocks—an in-
sult which can admit of but one remedy, in the
388 Organization of the

application of which they may be assured of the
warm sympathy and unalterable support of the
religious congregations of the whole Southern
States of every sect and denomination.” *

As the intelligence of the degradation of Bishop
Andrew flashed over the country, the Church and
people everywhere throughout the South were
aroused. At Wilmington, North Carolina, on the
10th of June, the following resolutions were
adopted :

“Whereas, the General Conference of the Meth-
odist Episcopal Church now in session, has taken
action in sundry matters deeply interesting and
vitally important to the Southern portion of the
Church ; first, in the affirmation of the decision of
the Baltimore Conference in the case of the Rev.
Francis A. Harding; secondly, in requesting that
Bishop Andrew desist from the exercise of his
office because of his connection with slavery,
which request can only be regarded as a virtual
deposition from office; and, thirdly, in the rescis-
sion of the resolution of the General Conference
of 1840 respecting the testimony of colored per-
sons in Church-trials ; and, whereas, these various
steps have been taken against the remonstrances,
protests, and declarations of the Southern delega-
tions, and with full assurances of the ruinous ef-

 

* Western Christian Advocate, August 9, 1844.
M. E. Church, South. 389

fects which such proceedings must have upon the
peace and unity of the Church; therefore,

“1. Resolved, That we have viewed, with deep
regret and pain, the introduction into the highest
judicatory of the Church, of questions wholly
civil and political, and with which ecclesiastical
assemblies have no right to interfere.

“2. Resolved, That the course pursued by the
majority in the present General Conference, has
evinced a fixed determination to drive the minor-
ity into a secession from the body ecclesiastic.

“3. Resolved, That we highly approve the digni-
fied, manly, and Christian firmness exhibited by
the delegates from the Southern and South-west-
ern Conferences, in the trying position in which
they have been placed.

“4. Resolved, That we entertain the highest es-
teem and veneration for our beloved and faithful
Bishop, the Rev. James O. Andrew—that we
deeply sympathize in the affliction to which his
feelings have been subjected, by the reckless and
tyrannical conduct of a majority of the General
Conference—and that we highly approve his dig-
nified and Christian bearing throughout the whole
transaction.

“5. Resolved, That we regard the action of the
majority of the General Conference in the case of
the Rev. Bishop Andrew, as a gross and flagrant
violation of the constitution, and Discipline of the
390 Organization of the

Methodist Episcopal Church, and as such nudl and
void, and that it is the sense and desire of this
meeting that Bishop Andrew continue the exer-
cise of his Episcopal office.

“6. Resolved, That in view of the late action of
the General Conference, the present union of the
Methodist Episcopal Church ought to be dmedi-
ately dissolved, and we look with confidence and
hope to the Southern and South-western Confer-
ences to form a Southern organization as soon as
possible.

“7. Resolved, That we recommend to our breth-
ren, the male members of our Churches, through-
out the South and South-west, to hold meetings,
and express their views on this action of the Gen-
eral Conference as early as possible.” *

At Norfolk and Fincastle, Virginia, at Beaufort,
Concord, Newbern, and Wadesboro, North Caro-
lina, at Charlotte and Marion, South Carolina,
at Milledgeville, Columbus, Newnan, La Grange,
Perry, Savannah, and Augusta, Georgia, at Tus-
kaloosa and Greensboro, Alabama, at New Orleans,
Louisiana, and at Nashville, Tennessee, as well as
in Kentucky and other States, meetings were held
and resolutions adopted expressive of sympathy
with Bishop Andrew, and the deepest dissatisfac-
tion with the action of the General Conference, jus-

 

* Western Christian Advocate, August 9, 1844.
M. E. Church, South. 391

tifying the delegates from the South for their manly
and dignified course, demanding immediate separa-
tion from the North, and declaring that the contin-
uance any longer in ecclesiastical connection with
the M. E. Church would imperil the existence of
Methodism in the South.

Long before the meeting of the Annual Confer-

ences, it became apparent that the necessity for a
separation from the M. E. Church was as impor-
tant as Methodism was dear to the ministry and
membership of the Church in the slaveholding
States.
* It was not only obvious to the Church in the
South that separation was inevitable, but leading
men in the North foresaw this result. In the
Western Christian Advocate of August 16, 1844,
the Editor, the Rev. Charles Elliott, D.D., said:
“Calculating, then, from present appearances, we
see no other prospect than that the South will form
an independent Methodist Episcopal Church.”

Indeed, Dr. Elliott, whatever may have been
his subsequent views, at this date became a cham-
pion for the division of the Church. In the same
editorial from which the above extract is taken
he says:

* «We may be wrong in our view; but we con-
fess we can see no injury that will accrue to re-
ligion from this new organization, or rather modi-
fication or adjustment of the old one. At an early
392 Organization of the

age, Christianity was resolved into many distinct
connectional organizations, called Churches, such
as the Churches of Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexan-
dria, Rome. Even in the Established Church of
England, there is the Church of Ireland, and Eng-
land, and that of England is divided into two
archiepiscopal dioceses, possessing peculiar inde-
pendent powers. Even Methodism has given
examples of similar character. There is the
British Conference, the Irish Conference, the
Canadian Conference, all acting independently—
all coperating—all in friendly relations. Our
Church is actually become unwieldy in conse-
quence of its great size, and the vast extent of
territory over which it is spread, with people en-
tertaining different views on topics calculated to
create different action. Nor can we see any more
evil that can arise from dividing the Church into
two great independent ecclesiastical confederations,
than (comparing small with greater) in dividing
classes, Circuits, Stations,. Districts, Conferences,
etc. We know that another division or separa-
tion may follow in time. But this is no more to
be deplored than that the two Circuits made out
of the old one must again be divided, and then
there will be three or four in the place of one,
because the number of souls added to the Church
is so great that these divisions are necessary.
Nor can we see wherein missionary operations
M. E. Church, South. 393

will be less, but greater. Besides, our General
Conference, under the present organization, will
soon be so large as to become an unwieldy body ;
and if the ratio of representation be diminished,
then representation itself must be almost done
away by reducing it.

“We may be almost alone in our views. We
barely expressed the sentiment at General Con-
ference, not having the fortitude, or rather the
gift, of arguing our views in such an assembly.
We do not utter those things now to enter into
controversy with any person on this topic. Still
it may not be amiss to look over, after awhile, the
history of the Church in reference to such organi-
zations. Indeed, we are persuaded that distinct
organizations must exist in the nature of things in
the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United
States; and that necessity and Scripture principles
will inevitably enforce them. We believe that the
unity, purity, power, and extending influence of
Methodism may be promoted by these means.
Such thesis we are prepared to maintain; but we
wish not to take the least advantage of our posi-
tion as editor to support them.”

At a later period, it is true Dr. Elliott avowed
a different doctrine, and used the influence of his
official position to defeat the Plan of Separation.
The Christian Advocate and Journal, the central

organ of the Church, had for its etioe Dr. Thomas
17*
394 Organization of the

H. Bond, a writer of distinguished ability. This
paper had an extensive circulation throughout the
South, and-its columns were replete with edito-
rials denouncing the Plan of Separation as uncon-
stitutional, and avowing that no necessity existed
for a separate ecclesiastical organization. Other
papers in the North, published in the interest of
the Methodist Episcopal Church, followed in the
wake of Dr. Bond. Whether those Church organs
hoped to prevent the division of the Church, as
provided for in the Plan of Separation, or whether
their object was to arrest the heavy tide of oppo-
sition, which in the North had set in immediately
after the General Conference, to the legislation of
that body in the cases of Mr. Harding and Bishop
Andrew, and which threatened to overthrow the
Church in the Northern States, we may not de-
cide. If the South was agitated, the North was
by no means quiet. Dissatisfaction as wide-
spread as the Methodist Episcopal Church in
America existed, and if the Church in the North
had at that time been consulted there is scarcely
a doubt that the action of the General Conference
would have been reversed, and the connectional
unity of the Church preserved.

The necessity of a separation, however, was not
left to Northern Church-journalists, but to “the
Annual Conferences in the slaveholding States.”
They, and not the North—either individually, in

‘
M. E. Church, South. 395

their press, or in ecclesiastical assemblies—were to
be the umpires in the settlement of this important
question, in which the existence of Methodism in
the South was involved.

The reference of this question to the Annual
Conferences was eminently proper. The resolu-
tions adopted in some of the primary meetings
were severely worded, although an apology may be
found in the revolutionary measures against which
they protested.

Several months were to elapse before the An-
nual Conferences would convene, and during that
period the people would have time for calm delib-
eration, and the preachers, mingling freely in
their intercourse with the laity, would become
thoroughly familiar with their sentiments and
purposes.

The Kentucky Conference was the first to as-
semble. On the llth of September it convened
in Bowling-green, Kentucky. A committee was
appointed to take into consideration the state of
the Church, and, after mature deliberation, reported
that the division of the Methodist Episcopal
Church was unavoidable, unless the North should
make reparation for past injury, and give assurance
against future aggressions on the rights of South-
ern preachers and members.

The report of the committee was adopted by
the Conference with only one dissenting voice.
396 Organization of the

The action of the Kentucky Conference found
an echo in the heart of the entire Church through-
out the South. The Annual Conferences in the
slaveholding States met in quick succession, and
passed resolutions similar to those adopted by the
Kentucky Conference. The Missouri, Holston,
Tennessee, Memphis, Mississippi, Arkansas, Vir-
ginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Indian
Mission, Georgia, Florida, Texas, and Alabama
Conferences, as with one voice, declared that
Methodism in the South could no longer accom-
plish its work of doing good, if the unity of the
Methodist Episcopal Church should be preserved.
They demanded a separation, as the only means
of preventing the wreck of every hope they
had cherished “of spreading scriptural holiness
over these lands.”*

The continual agitation of the question’ of
slavery had previously done much to weaken the
bonds of union between the two sections, and if
peace could be restored at all, and become perma-
nent, it could only be procured by the division
provided for in the Plan of Separation.

The position of Bishop Andrew in the mean-
time was anomalous. Notwithstanding the action
of the General Conference, requesting him to de-

 

*For the action of the several Annual Conferences, see
Appendix B.
M. E. Church, South. 397

sist from the exercise of Episcopal functions, it
was resolved that his name should still “stand
in the Minutes, Hymn-book, and Discipline,” as a
Bishop in the Church; “that the rule in rela-
tion to the support of a Bishop and his family
applied to” him, and “that whether any and in
what work” he should “be employed,” should “be
determined by his own decision and action in re-
lation to the previous action of this Conference in
his case.”

The plan of Episcopal visitation for the next
four years was made out and published without
assigning Bishop Andrew to any work.

“The fact was this, the board of Bishops agreed
that Bishop Andrew should be taken into the
plan of Episcopal visitation, provided he should
apply for work, and to meet that contingency they
prepared a second plan of visitation including
Bishop Andrew, which plan was to be published
in place of the first, in case he made such apphi-
cation. This reserved plan was committed to the
hands of Bishop Soule, to be published if Bishop
Andrew should make application, in writing, for
Episcopal work. But of all this arrangement
Bishop Andrew had no notice whatever, except in
vague rumor. In this condition matters remained
for some months. For a time the general current .
of opinion among the Bishop’s friends seemed to
be against his performing any Episcopal labor;
398 Organization of the

for it was more than intimated that i: he did so,
he would be impeached for a violation of the ex-
pressed will or ‘sense’ of the General Conference.
When, however, it appeared to be settled that the
Bishop would not take work, there were not want-
ing among those who favored his suspension, men
who urged the propriety, and even duty, of his
performing Episcopal labor. The measure was
urged in one or more of the Northern Church
papers, and in a more private way it was said
that as the Bishop was supported by the Church,
he had no right to withhold his labors, and it was
strongly suggested that such neglect of official
duty might very properly constitute just ground
of impeachment.

“At this crisis, Bishop Andrew received a let
ter from Bishop Soule, inviting him into the field.
This was the first authentic information Bishop
Andrew received of the arrangement entered into
by the Bishops at the close of the General Con-
ference.”

The letter from Bishop Soule is as follows:

“To the Rev. James O. Andrew, D.D., Bishop of the Meth-
odist Episcopal Church :

»  . “LEBANON, Onto, Sept. 26, 1844.

“My Dear BisHop:—Since the close of the re-
cent eventful session of the General Conference,
I have been watching, with deep solicitude, the
M. E. Church, South. 399

‘signs of the times,’ and tracing causes, as far
as I was able, to their ultimate issues. Some
general results growing out of the action of the
Conference, it required no prophetic vision to
foresee. To prevent the measures which, in my
judgment, would lead to these results with de-
monstrative certainty, I labored day and night
with prayers and tears, till the deed was done—
the eventful resolution passed. From that peril-
ous hour my hands hung down, discouragement
filled my heart, and the last hope of the unity of
our beloved Zion well-nigh fled from earth to
heaven. My last effort to avert the threatening
storm appears in the joint recommendation of all
the Bishops to suspend al] action in the case until
the ensuing General Conference. At the presen-
tation of this document some brethren perceived
that instead of Light, the darkness around them
was increased tenfold. Others will judge, have
judged already. And those who come after us
will examine the history of our acts. The docu-
ment was respectfully laid upon the table, probably
under the influence of deep regret that ‘our Bish-
ops should enter the arena of controversy in the
General Conference. But it cannot—does not
- sleep there. Ihave heard many excellent minis-
ters, and distinguished laymen in our own Com-
munion, not in the slave States, refer to it as a
measure of sound Christian policy, and with deep
400 Organization of the

regret that the Conference had not adopted it.
Many of our Northern brethren seem now deeply
to deplore the division of the Church O that
there had been forethought as well as afterthought!
I have seen various plans of compromise for the
adjustment of our difficulties and preservation of
the unity of the Church. The most prominent
plan provides that a fundamental article in the
treaty shall be, That no abolitionist or slaveholder
shall be eligible to the office of a Bishop in the
Methodist Episcopal Church. Alas for us! Where
are our men of wisdom, of experience? Where
are our fathers and brethren who have analyzed
the elements of civil or ecclesiastical compacts?
who have studied man in his social relations?
Who are the ‘high contracting parties,’ and will
they create a caste in the constitutional eldership
~in the Church of Christ? Will this tend to har-
monize and consolidate the body? Brethren
North and South will know that the cause must be
removed, that the effect may cease. That the
Jountain must be dried up before the stream will
cease to flow. But I must pause on this subject.
The time has not fully arrived for me to define
my position in regard to the causes and remedies
of the evils which now agitate and distract our
once united and peaceful body. Still I trust I
have given such proofs, at different times, and
under different circumstances, as not to render my
M. E. Church, South. 401

position doubtful in the judgment of sober, dis-
criminating men, either North or South. The
General Conference spoke in the language of wis-
dom and sound Christian policy when, in the pas-
toral address of 1836, it solemnly and affection-
ately advised the ministers and members of the
Church to abstain from all agitation of the ex-
citing subject of slavery and its abolition. Nor
was the adoption of the Report of the commit-
tee on the memorial of our brethren from a por-
tion of Virginia, within the bounds of the Bal-
timore Conference, less distinguished by the same
characteristics of our holy Christianity, and the
sound policy of our Discipline in providing for
the case.

“Tt has often been asked through the public
journals, and otherwise, ‘why Bishop Andrew
was not assigned his regular portion of the Episco-
pal work for the four ensuing years, on the plan
of visitation formed by the Bishops and published
in the official papers?’ It devolves on the ma-
jority of my colleagues in the Episcopacy, (if in-
deed we have an Episcopacy,) rather than on me,
to answer this question. Our difference of opin-
ion in the premises, I have no doubt, was in
Christian honesty and sincerity. Dismissing all
farther reference to the painful past till I see you
in the South, let me now most cordially invite you
to meet me at the Virginia Conference at Lynch-
402 Organization of the

burg, November 13th, 1844, should it please a
gracious Providence to enable me to be there.
And I earnestly desire that you would, if practi-
cable, make your arrangements to be with me at
all the Southern Conferences in my division of
the work for the present year, where I am sure
your services will not be ‘unacceptable. I am
the more solicitous that you should be at Lynch-
burg from the fact that my present state of health
creates a doubt whether I shall be able to reach
it. Iam now laboring, and have been for nearly
three weeks, under the most severe attack of
asthma which I have had for six or seven years—
some nights unable to lie down for a moment.
Great prostration of the vital functions, and in-
deed of the whole physical system, is the conse-
quence. But no effort of mine shall be wanting
to meet my work; and the inducements to effort
are greatly increased by the present position of
the Church, and the hope of relief from my present
affliction by the influence of a milder and more
congenial climate. I cannot conclude without an
expression of sincere sympathy for you, and the
sharer of your joys and sorrows, in the deep
afflictions through which you have been called
to pass. May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ
sustain you both!

“Yours with sentiments of affection and esteem,

“ JosHuaA SOULE.”
M. E. Church, South. 403

“This invitation of Bishop Soule called down
on him severe censure from the North. Dr.
Elliott, Dr. Bond, Dr. Bangs, and others, de-
nounced the measure as not only unauthorized,
but high-handed, and in contravention of the de-
cision of the General Conference and the Board
of Bishops. That it contravened no action of the
General Conference is very clear, from the fact,
that whether the Bishop should labor or not was
to depend on his own decision. That decision
was now had, and as the General Conference had
prescribed no particular mode in which it should be
obtained or given, there could have been no infrac-
tion of the law or expressed will of that body in
the proceeding.

“As regards the Board of Bishops, the spirit of
their decision was, that if Bishop Andrew should
signify a willingness to take work on the Episco-
pal plan, it should be given him; and the letter of
that decision was, that he should have work as-
signed him when he should make written applica-
tion for it. That the spirit of the decision was
fully met when he accepted Bishop Soule’s invi-
tation to aid him in his circuit of Conferences,
can hardly be doubted; and as that acceptance
was a written one, and as the Bishops had not
prohibited the making of an inquiry or the giving
of an invitation, which might call forth an expres-
sion of willingness to labor, or an application for
404 Organization of the

work, both the spirit and the letter of the decision
appear to have been sufficiently fulfilled.”

Bishop Soule explains and defends his own
course in this matter, in the following letter,
which was published in the Southern Christian
Advocate, dated

“Auausta, Ga., January 4, 1845.

“Dear Broruer:—In the editorial of the Chris-
tian Advocate and Journal of the 18th ultimo, I
find the following assertion with special reference
to myself: ‘He, therefore, claims for the Episco-
pacy—nay, for any one of the Bishops—a right
to decide on the legality of any act of the Gen-
eral Conference, and to veto it, if, in his judgment,
it is not in accordance with the Discipline of the
Church. Thus a new issue is added to the one
which has agitated the Church so fearfully, and
one on which it is impossible to come to a compro-
mise, without changing the cardinal principles of
our ecclesiastical economy. ‘This is a plain and
positive assertion of Dr. Bond, relative to what I
claim as the right of Bishops or any one of them.
The Doctor must permit me, as plainly and _ posi-
tively, to assert the direct converse of his position,
and thus change the ‘new issue’ from the North-
ern and Southern departments of the Church, to
him and myself, with the hope that he may enjoy
the happiness of still believing that ‘there will be
M. E. Church; South. 405

no division, and yet shout ‘glory to God’ over
propositions for compromise, without ‘changing
the cardinal principles of our ecclesiastical econo-
my.’ And I assure the Doctor, and all concerned,
that I will heartily join with him in the shout,
when a plan of compromise shall be proposed
which does not invade chartered rights and privi-
leges of any ‘grade’ of our ministry or member-
ship. But that the Doctor should attempt to
make me the author of a ‘new issue’ in this con-
troversy, and that issue of such a nature as to
preclude all compromise without a change of the
fundamental principles of our Church polity, and
thus transfer the responsibility of the results of
the controversy from the parties concerned to me,
I cannot but regard as at variance with those
principles which I have been taught to believe
should govern the actions of Christian ministers
toward each other. The Doctor must not, he can-
not, make me the ‘scapegoat,’ to bear away this
responsibility from those to whom it justly belongs.

“T assert, without fear of contradiction, that I
never have claimed, either for myself, or any one
of the Bishops, or all of them conjointly, the
‘right’ which Dr. Bond charges on me as claim-
ing. And now I cannot but sincerely and ar-
dently desire that this ‘new issue’ being thus
fairly made, so far as I am concerned, exclusively
between the Doctor and myself, it may not be
406 Organization of the

made a matter of exciting agitation in the Church,
in addition to all which has ‘so fearfully’ agitated
her before, at least till the point is settled between
_ us, on which the ‘new issue’ is now made.

“Jt is very possible that in writing my letter
of invitation to Bishop Andrew to meet me at the
Virginia Conference, and accompany me to the
others in my Southern tour, with a view to his
affording me aid in the superintendency, I may
‘have traveled out of the record of the offeval in-
structions of the General Conference for the gov-
ernment of the ‘action’ of the Superintendents in
the Bishop’s case, according to Dr. Bond’s ‘sense’
of those instructions. But according to my best
judgment of those instructions, given to the
Bishops, not to Dr. Bond, I have done nothing but
what is fully provided for, and covered by the
record. And I trust I may presume, without os-
tentation, that I have as good a ‘right’ to judge
of the meaning and import of such instructions as
my good friend of the Christian Advocate and
Journal; especially as I am amenable, not to him,
but to the General Conference. And I confess I
should hesitate to charge Dr. Bond before the
Church and the community, with ‘claiming a right
to veto the acts of the General Conference,’ or of
disregarding official instructions relating to his
office, because in my judgment he had not kept
within the official record. But it may be the
M. EL. Church, South. 407

Doctor thinks that his office requires him to keep
us all right.

“JT might have thought that the Doctor's office
required him to take a more decided and active
position in sustaining and carrying out the plan
adopted by the General Conference for the amica-
ble separation of the Church, and equitable divi-
sion of the funds; and to have guarded his col-
umns against the hostile attacks which were made
both upon the Conference and the measure. But
doubtless he acted in strict conformity to his sense
of the duties of his office, in regard both to the
Conference and their action in the premises. It
certainly could not have been the sense of the
General Conference, that any of their editors
should pursue a course which was either designed
or calculated to defeat their own official acts; es-
pecially one which was adopted with so great
unanimity, and truly Christian sympathy and
kindness, as the one here alluded to. But it does
not belong to my office to accuse Dr. Bond before
the Church or the public, however I might differ
from him in judgment with regard to his course.
He and myself are both strictly ‘amenable’ to a
constitutional tribunal; and with ull deference to
the Doctor’s age, and talents, and office, and high
respectability, both in the civil and religious com-
munity, I must be permitted to question his
‘right’ to prejudge me, either by virtue of his
408 - Organization of the

office, or otherwise, and that too before I can be
heard in my own defense. If the Doctor thinks,
under all these circumstances, that such a course is
calculated to effect the unity and peace of the
Church, an object which he so ardently desires,
and at the first dawning prospect of which he
shouts ‘glory to God,’ I can only say that in this,
as well as in regard to the high probability of the
division of the Church, on which we have freely
expressed our opinions before, we differ widely in
judgment, and future events will show which of
us is in error.
“Very respectfully, JosHua SovuLg.”

After Bishop Andrew had been laboring with
Bishop Soule for some months, in attending the
Southern Conferences, four of the Bishops made
the following publication, which, as it propérly
belongs to this history, is here inserted:

“Dear Bretaren:—The time has arrived, when,
in the judgment of the undersigned, it is proper
they should respond to calls which have been
made, both privately and publicly, for authentic
information in regard to the action of a majority
of the Superintendents, by which the name of
Bishop Andrew was omitted from the Plan of
Episcopal Visitation, which was arranged at the
close of the late General Conference, and pub-
M. E. Church, South. 409

lished in the Christian Advocate and other official
journals of the Church. The statements which
follow, will, it is believed, place that action and
the grounds thereof in a view intelligible to ‘all;
and beyond this, they have neither desire nor in-
tention to go in this communication.

“On the first day of June last the following
preamble and resolution were adopted by the
General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal
Church:

“<Whereas, the Discipline of our Church forbids
the doing any thing 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 estima-
tion of the General Conference, 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 the General
Conference, that he desist from the exercise of his
office so long as this impediment remains.’”

On the 6th of June the following note was
presented to the General Conference:

“Reverend and Dear Brethren:—As the case
of Bishop Andrew unavoidably involves the future
action of the Superintendents, which in their judg-

ment, in the present position of the Bishop,
18
410 Organization of the

they have no discretion to decide upon, they
respectfully request of this General Conference
oficial instruction, in answer to the following
quéstions:

“J. Shall Bishop Andrew’s name remain as
it now stands in the Minutes, Hymn-book, and
Discipline, or shall it be struck off 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 per-
form? and how shall he be appointed to his work?

“Josuua SovLez,
“Euan HEppine,
“BEVERLY WaveH,
“Tos. A. Morris.”

To which the General Conference responded:

“1. Resolved, As the sense of this Conference,
That Bishop Andrew’s name stand in the Minutes,
Hymn-book, and Discipline, as formerly.

“2. That the rule in reference to the support
of a Bishop and his family, applies to Bishop An-
drew.

“3, That whether in any, and if in any, what
work, Bishop Andrew be employed, is to be deter-
mined by his own decision and action, in relation
to the previous action of this Conference in his
case.”
M. E. Church, South. A411

In view of the aforesaid proceedings of the
General Conference, the undersigned, on the 11th
of June, appended their names to a paper written
in the words which follow:

“Tt is our opinion in regard to the action of the
late General Conference in the case of Bishop
Andrew, that it was designed by that body to de-
volve the responsibility of the exercise of the
functions of his office exclusively on himself. In
the absence of Bishop Andrew at the time of ar-
ranging the Plan of Episcopal Visitation for the
ensuing four years, and he not having notified us
of his desire, or purpose, with respect to it, we
should regard ourselves as acting in contravention
of the expressed will of the General Conference,
if we apportioned to Bishop Andrew any definite
portion thereof. But if he shall hereafter make
a written application for a portion of the general
oversight, we should feel ourselves justified in as-
signing it to him.

“After this paper was signed, and before the
parting of the Superintendents, it was agreed to
make out a reserved Plan of Episcopal Visitation,
including Bishop Andrew in the apportionment of
the work thereof, which was done, and intrusted
to the safe keeping of Bishop Soule, with an ex-
plicit understanding, that if he should receive
from Bishop Andrew a written application for his
portion of the general superintendence, he was
412 Organization of the

then, and in that event, to publish the second or
reserved plan in immediate connection with the
said application, that the reason for the substitu-
tion of the second plan might accompany its pub-
lication. Such was the action of the undersigned
in the case presented, and such the ground on
which it was based. At present, this is all that
they feel themselves called to make public.

“Hiwan HEppine,

“B. Waueu,

«<THomas A. Morris,

“T, L. Hamuine.”
M. E. Church, South. 413

CHAPTER VI.

Excitement along the Border—Rev. Joseph 8. Tomlinson,
D.D.—The Minerva Circuit, Kentucky Conference—Con-
vention meets in Louisville, Kentucky, on the first day
of May, 1845—Of whom composed—Bishops Soule, An-
drew, and Morris present—Bishop Soule’s address to the
Convention—Committee appointed to consider the neces-
sity of a Southern Organization—Resolutions offered by
Dr. Winans—B. M. Drake’s Resolution—Resolution of-
fered by Drs. Smith and Pierce—Resolution offered by
James E. Evans—Withdrawn—Dr. Smith’s Resolution
adopted—Report of the Committee on Organization—Its
adoption—Resolutions requesting Bishops Soule and An-
drew to unite with the Methodist Episcopal Church, South
—Reply of Bishops Soule and Andrew—Pastoral Ad-
dress—Adjournment of the Convention—Border Confer-
ences.

Wirtn remarkable unanimity the Annual Confer-
ences, throughout the slaveholding States, approved
the course pursued by their delegates in the Gen-
eral Conference. Deprecating, as they did, the
prospect of a division of the Church, they never-
theless preferred it to the surrender of rights and
privileges which were a common heritage in a
414 Organization of the

Church, to the prosperity of which they had
equally, with the North, contributed the wealth
of their devotion and their lives. In language
unmistakable, they declared that unless reparation
should be made for past injury, and assurance
given that the rights of both ministers and laymen
could be effectually secured, according to the Dis-
cipline, against future aggressions, the contem-
plated division would be inevitable.

In the action of the several Annual Conferences
provision was made for holding a Convention of
delegates from the Conferences in the slaveholding
States, in the city of Louisville, Kentucky, in
compliance with “the recommendation of the
Southern and South-western delegates in the late
General Conference.” To this Convention dele-
gates were elected in the ratio of “one delegate
for every eleven members of Conferences.”

The: question of a Convention not only elicited
considerable discussion in the Northern Methodist
press, but extraordinary efforts were made to de-
feat its object. The Plan of Separation had pro-
vided that “all the societies, stations, and Con-
ferences adhering to the Church in the South, by
a vote of a majority of the members of said so-
cieties, stations, and Conferences, shall remain
under the unmolested pastoral care of the South-
ern Church; and the ministers of the M. EH.
Church shall in no wise attempt to organize
M. LE. Church, South. A415

Churches or societies within the limits of the
Church, South, nor shall they attempt to exercise
any pastoral oversight therein; it being understood
that the ministry of the South reciprocally ob-
serve the same rule in relation to stations, socie-
ties, and Conferences adhering, by vote of a ma-
jority, to the M. E. Church; provided, also, that
this rule shall apply only to societies, stations, and
Conferences bordering on the line of division, and
not to interior charges, which shall, in all cases,
be left to the care of that Church within whose
territory they are situated.”

This privilege, extended to “societies, stations,
and Conferences” on the border, while it was in-
tended to promote the harmony of the Churches
embraced in the provision, opened the door for
controversy and strife, which, in too many in-
stances, resulted in the religious bankruptcy and
ruin of societies on the border.

The Kentucky Conference embraced the entire
State of Kentucky, with the exception of a small
district lying South of the Tennessee River, which
was included in the Memphis Conference. Its
Northern and Western borders extended along the
Ohio River from Catlettsburg to Smithland, a dis-
tance of nearly seven hundred miles. All along
this border, on the Kentucky shore, were beauti-
ful towns, in which Methodism had been planted,
and where it had grown and prospered. On the
416 Organization of the

opposite shore the Kentucky Conference was con-
fronted by the Ohio, the Indiana, and the Illinois
Conferences. To the Church in Kentucky, under
the blessing of Heaven, these Conferences were
indebted for the introduction of Methodism among
them. The men who first bore the tidings of a
Redeemer’s love beyond the beautiful Ohio, to
what are now the States of Ohio, Indiana, and II-
linois, were sent out from Kentucky. The Rev.
Joseph S. Tomlinson, D.D., was the abolition
leader in Kentucky. He was the President of
Augusta College, and resided in Augusta, a pleas-
ant and flourishing village on the Ohio River.
The College over which he presided had been pat-
ronized conjointly by the Ohio and Kentucky Con-
ferences; the former, however, had turned its
attention to an institution of learning in its own
State, while the latter, unable to sustain Augusta
College alone, had accepted a flattering invitation
to the occupancy of the Transylvania University,
located in Lexington.

In Augusta, Methodism was the synonym of all
that was good. It had been planted there by
Walter Griffith, and was watered by the labors of
Finley, Trimble, McCown, Tomlinson, and Bas-
com, while the whole surrounding country was
under its benign influence. The town of Augusta,
as a preaching-place, was embraced in the Minerva
Circuit. In the winter previous to the General
M. E. Church, South. AIT

Conference of 1844, an extensive revival of relig-
ion, in which many hundreds were awakened and
converted to God, spread over the Minerva Cir-
cuit. The work began at Mount Zion, a few miles
south of Augusta, on Christmas-day. From Mount
Zion it extended to Brooksville, to Minerva, the
Stone Church, Dover, and Augusta. For ninety
days and nights, without intermission, the work
went on in this circuit, the revival influence spread-
ing all over it.

On the 8th of February, previous to the meet-
ing of the Convention, a quarterly-meeting was
held at Mount Zion Church, and sundry resolu-
tions were offered by Dr. Tomlinson, protesting
against the division of the Church under any cir-
cumstances, and pledging, in case of division, the
continuance of that circuit in the Methodist Epis-
copal Church. These resolutions failed, and the
following were offered by the preacher in charge,
and adopted :

“1. Resolved, That it is our deliberate judgment,
that the action of the late General Conference of
the Methodist Episcopal Church, virtually depos-
ing Bishop Andrew, and also their action affirm-
ing the decision of the Baltimore Conference, in
the case of the Rev. F. A. Harding, are not sus-
tained by the Discipline of our Church, and that
we consider these proceedings as constituting a

highly dangerous precedent.
18*
418 Organization of the

“2. Resolved, That we deeply regret the pros-
pect of division, growing out of these proceedings,
and do most sincerely and devoutly pray to the
great Head of the Church, that some effectual
means, not inconsistent with the cause of Christ
or the honor of all concerned, may be suggested
and devised, by which so great a calamity may be
averted, and our long-cherished union preserved
and perpetuated.

“3. Resolved, That unless we can be assured
that the rights of our ministry and membership
will be effectually secured, according to Discipline,
against future aggression, and full reparation be
made for past injury, we shall deem the contem-
plated division unavoidable.

“4. Resolved, That the manner in which Bishop
Andrew sustained himself under his informal and
lawless prosecution, characterized equally by Chris- °
tian meekness and the firmness of conscious in-
tegrity, commands our admiration, and has given
him, if possible, even a higher place than he al-
ready occupied in our esteem and affections.

“5, Resolved, That the members of the General
Conference who so firmly and perseveringly re-
sisted the unjust and extrajudicial proceedings
against Bishop Andrew and the South, merit our
warmest thanks.

“6. Resolved, That we have the most implicit
confidence in the intelligence and piety of the
M. E. Church, South. 419

delegates elected to the Convention to be held in
Louisville in May next; and, knowing from their
zeal and unflinching ardor in the service of God,
that they will have nothing but the glory of God
and the good of the Church in view, we most
cheerfully commit our cause into their hands.

“7, Resolved, That in case of division, we can-
not go with the North. We believe they have de-
serted the ‘old landmarks’ of our fathers, disre-
garded the Discipline of the Church, and we can-
not hesitate between a separation from the North, or
a separation from our excellent Book of Discipline—
from our ministers, through whose pious instru-
mentality we were converted to God, and whose
interests are identified with our own.

“8. Resolved, That we do not separate from the
Methodist Episcopal Church, but from the juris-
diction of the General Conference of said Church.

“9. Resolved, That if the Church divide, the
South is not responsible for it; but the whole
weight of the responsibility rests with the North,
whose lawless acts are driving us from their
bosom.”

The Rev. John C. Harrison was in the chair,
being the Presiding Elder on the Maysville Dis-
trict, in which the Minerva Circuit was embraced.
i From this hour the war in that circuit against the
action of the Kentucky Conference was carried on
by Dr. Tomlinson with a zeal which had never
420 Organization of the

previously distinguished his labors in the Church.
Day and night, through long months, with unre-
mitting energy, he toiled to prevent the Minerva
Circuit, in the bounds of which he lived, from ad-
hering to the fortunes of the South. His labors
were unavailing, except inthe townof Augusta. All
the other societies in the circuit, with the exception
of a small minority at Mount Zion, sustained the
action of the Kentucky Conference, and pledged
themselves to adhere to the Southern division of
the Church. Baffled in their expectations, the abo-
lition party sought revenge by securing, from a
packed Grand Jury, an indictment against the
preacher in charge of the circuit, who had thwarted
their designs. The indictment reads :

“We, the Grand Jury, now in session at Brooks-
ville, the county seat of Bracken county, Ken-
tucky, find a true bill against A. H. Redford, as a
disturber of the peace; and if his principles were
carried out, would lead to a dissolution of our
happy union, according to the evidence before
us.” *

 

*The indictment was promptly dismissed by the Hon.
Judge Reed, the Judge of the Circuit Court, and the Hon.
Harrison Taylor, the Commonwealth’s Attorney; the former
a member of the Campbellite Church, and the latter not a
member of any Church. A few days later, nearly every
member of the Grand Jury asked the forgiveness of the
preacher whom they had wronged.
M. E. Church, South. 421

In no district in Kentucky was the war waged
with so much violence as in the Maysville. The
Presiding Elder was in sympathy with the North-
ern Church, but performed the duties of his office
‘in connection with this question with equal justice
and impartiality.

While the disturbance in this part of Kentucky
was more deeply felt in its results than on the
border elsewhere, yet in other parts of the State,
as also in Missouri and Virginia, controversies oc-
curred which, in some instances, rent societies in
twain.

The Convention of Delegates from the South-
ern and South-western Conferences of the Meth-
odist Episcopal Church, viz., Kentucky, Missouri,
Holston, Tennessee, North Carolina, Memphis,
Arkansas, Virginia, Mississippi, Texas, Alabama,
Georgia, South Carolina, Florida, and Indian Mis-
sion—elected on the basis of the Plan of Separa-
tion adopted by the General Conference, on the
8th June, 1844—assembled in the city of Louis-
ville, Kentucky, on the Ist day of May, A.D.
1845.

The meeting was called to order at 9 o'clock
AM., by Dr. William Capers, and Dr. Lovick
Pierce, of Georgia Conference, was elected Presi-
dent pro tem. This venerable minister opened the
Convention by reading the second chapter of
the Epistle to the Philippians; by singing a
422 Organization of the

hymn, containing an appropriate invocation of
the Holy Spirit—“Come Holy Spirit, heavenly
Dove”—and by offering a suitable and impressive
prayer to the throne of grace.

Thomas N. Ralston, of the Kentucky Confer-
ence, was then chosen Secretary pro tem. The
Conferences represented in the Convention were
then called over in the order in which they stand
in the General Minutes; and the delegates pre-
sented their certificates of election—the Conven-
tion having decided that those members who are
not furnished with certificates of election shall,
nevertheless, take their seats; provided that the
presiding officer of their respective Conferences,
or some member present, attest their election.

The following brethren, having furnished the
necessary vouchers, took their seats as members
of the Convention, to wit:

Kentucky Conference—V. B. Bascom, Edward
Stevenson, Hubbard H. Kavanaugh, Benjamin T.
Crouch, William Gunn, George W. Taylor, George
W. Brush, John C. Harrison, Burr H. McCown,
James King, John James, Thomas N. Ralston.

Missouri.—Andrew Monroe, Jesse Green, John
Glanville, Wesley Browning, William Patton, John
H. Linn, Joseph Boyle, Thomas Johnson.

Holston —Thomas K. Catlett, Thomas String-
field, Rufus M. Stevens, Timothy Sullins, Creed
Fulton.
M. E. Church, South. 423

Tennessee. — Robert Paine, John B. McFerrin,
Alexander L. P. Green, Fountain E. Pitts, Am-
brose F. Driskill, John W. Hanner, Joshua Bou-
cher, Thomas Maddin, Frederick G. Ferguson,
Robert L. Andrews.

North Carolina.—Samuel 8. Bryant, Hezekiah
G. Leigh, Bennet T. Blake, Robert J. Carson,
Peter Doub, John T. Brame.

Memphis.——Moses Brock, George W. D. Har-
ris, William McMahon, Thomas Joyner, Asbury
Davidson, Wilson L. McAlister, Thomas Smith.

Arkansas. —John Harrell, John F. Truslow,
Jacob Custer.

Virginia— John Early, Thomas Crowder, Wil-
liam A. Smith, Leroy M. Lee, Abraham Penn,
David S. Doggett, Henry B. Cowles, Anthony
Dibrell.

Mississippi.— William Winans, Lewell Camp-
bell, John G. Jones, Green M. Rogers, Benjamin
M. Drake, Samuel W. Speer, William H. Wat-
kins.

Texas.—Littleton Fowler, Francis Wilson, R.
Alexander. ‘

Alabama. — Jefferson Hamilton, Jesse Boring,
Thomas H. Capers, Eugene V. Levert, Elisha
Calloway, Thomas O. Summers, Greenbury Gar-
rett.

Georgia.— Lovick Pierce, George F. Pierce,
James E. Evans, John W. Glenn, Samuel An-
424 Organization of the

thony, Augustus B. Longstreet, Isaac Boring,
James B. Payne, Thomas Sandford.

South Carolina.—William Capers, William M.
Wightman, Hugh A. ©. Walker, Samuel Dun-
wody, Bond English, Samuel W. Capers, White-
foord Smith, Robert J. Boyd.

Florida.—Peyton P. Smith, Thomas C. Ben-
ning.

Indian Mission—Hdward T. Peery, David B.
Cumming.

On motion of Augustus B. Longstreet and
William Capers, it was

Resolved, That the Bishops of the Methodist
Episcopal Church, now in attendance, be requested
to preside over the meeting, under such arrange-
ments as they may make from day to day among
themselves. This resolution was adopted unani-
mously, by a standing vote.

Bishop Soule being present, informed the Con-
vention that he would express his views on the
subject of this resolution, both on behalf of him-
self and his colleague, Bishop Andrew (who was
also present), on to-morrow morning.

On motion of John Early, it was

Resolved, That all elections for officers be by
ballot, when more than one is nominated; other-
wise by nomination and election.

An election of Secretary then took place, and
Thomas O. Summers was, on the first balloting,
M. E. Church, South. 425

duly elected. Thomas N. Ralston was, in like
manner, duly elected Assistant Secretary.

On the second day of the Convention, Bishop
Soule addressed the body as follows:

I rise on the present occasion to offer a few
remarks to this Convention of ministers, under
the influence of feelings more solemn and impres-
sive than I recollect ever to have experienced
before. The occasion is certainly one of no ordi-
nary interest and solemnity. I am deeply im-
pressed with a conviction of the important results
of your deliberations and decisions in relation to
that numerous body of Christians and Christian
ministers you here represent, and to the country
at large. And knowing as I do the relative con-
dition of the vast community where your acts
must be extensively felt, I cannot but feel a deep
interest in the business of the Convention, both
as it respects yourselves, and the millions who
must be affected by your decisions. With such
views and feelings, you will indulge me in an
expression of confident hope that all Your busi-
ness will be conducted with the greatest delib-
eration, and with that purity of heart and mod-
eration of temper suitable to yourselves, as a
body of Christian ministers, and to the impor-
tant concerns which have called you together in
this city.
426 Organization of the

The opinion which I formed at the close of
the late General Conference, that the proceedings
of that body would result in a division of the
Church, was not induced by the impulse of ex-
citement, but was predicated of principles and
facts after the most deliberate and mature con-
sideration. That opinion I have freely expressed.
And however deeply I have regretted such a re-
sult, believing it to be inevitable, my efforts have
been made, not to prevent it, but rather that it
might be attended with the least injury, and the
greatest amount of good which the case would
admit. I was not alone in this opinion. A num-
ber of aged and influential ministers entertained
the same views. - And, indeed, it is not easy to
conceive how any one, intimately acquainted with
the facts in the case, and the relative position of
the North and South, could arrive at any other
conclusion. Nothing has transpired since the
close of the General Conference to change the
opinion I then formed; but subsequent events
have rather confirmed it. In view of the certainty
of the issue, and at the same time ardently de-
sirous that the two great divisions of the Church
might be in peace and harmony within their own
respective bounds, and cultivate the spirit of
Christian fellowship, brotherly kindness, and char-
ity for each other, I cannot but consider it an aus-
picious event that sixteen Annual Conferences,
M. E. Church, South. 427

represented in this Convention, have acted with
such extraordinary unanimity in the measures
they have taken in the premises. In the Southern
Conferences which I have attended, I do not recol-
lect that there has been a dissenting voice with
respect to the necessity of a separate organization;
and although their official acts in deciding the im-
portant question, have been marked with that
clearness and decision which should afford satis-
factory evidence that they have acted under a
solemn conviction of duty to Christ, and to the
people of their charge, they have been equally
distinguished by moderation and candor. And as
far as I have been informed, all the other Confer-
ences have pursued a similar course.

It is ardently to be desired that the same una-
nimity may prevail in the counsels of this Con-
vention as distinguished, in such a remarkable
manner, the views, and deliberations, and decisions
of your constituents. When it is recollected that
it is not only for yourselves, and the present min-
istry and membership of the Conferences you rep-
resent, that you are assembled on this occasion,
but that millions of the present race, and genera-
tions yet unborn, may be affected, in their most
essential interest, by the results of your delibera-
tions, it will occur to you how important it is that
you should “do all things as in the immediate pres-
ence of God.” Let all your acts, dear brethren,
428 Organization of the

be accompanied with much prayer for that wisdom
which is from above.

While you are thus impressed with the impor-
tance and solemnity of the subject which has
occasioned the Convention, and of the high re-
sponsibility under which you act, I am confident
you will cultivate the- spirit of Christian modera-
tion and forbearance; and that in all your acts you
will keep strictly within the limits and provisions
of the “Plan of Separation” adopted by the
General Conference with great unanimity and ap-
parent Christian kindness. I can have no doubt
of the firm adherence of the ministers and mem-
bers of the Church in the Conferences you repre-
sent, to the doctrines, rules, order of government,
and forms of worship, contained in our excellent
Book of Discipline. For myself, I stand upon
the basis of Methodism as contained in this book,
and from it I intend never to be removed. I can-
not be insensible to the expression of your confi-
dence in the resolution you have unanimously
adopted, requesting me to preside over the Conven-
tion in conjunction with my colleagues. And
after having weighed the subject with careful de-
liberation, I have resolved to accept your invita-
tion, and discharge the duties of the important
trust to the best of my ability. My excellent
colleague, Bishop Andrew, is of the same mind, and
will cordially participate in the duties of the chair.
M. E. Church, South. 429

I am requested to state to the Convention that
our worthy and excellent colleague, Bishop Mor-
ris, believes it to be his duty to decline a partici-
pation in the presidential duties. He assigns such
reasons for so doing as are, in the judgment of
his colleagues, perfectly satisfactory; and it is
presumed they would be considered in the same
light by the Convention. In conclusion, I trust that
all things will be done in that spirit which will be
approved of God; and devoutly pray that your
acts may result in the advancement of the Re-
deemer’s kingdom, and the salvation of the souls
of men.

Bishop Soule then took the chair, which was
courteously vacated by Dr. Pierce.

On motion of J. Early and W. A. Smith, it was

“Resolved, That a committee of two members,
from each Annual Conference represented in this
Convention, be appointed, whose duty it shall be
to take into consideration the propriety and ne-
cessity of a Southern organization, according to
the Plan of Separation adopted by the late
General Conference; together with the acts of
the several Annual Conferences on this subject,
and report the best method of securing the ob-
jects contemplated in the appointment of this
Convention.”

On motion of John Early and Thomas Crowder,
430 Organization of the

the foregoing committee was chosen by the respec-
tive delegations, and are as follows:

Kentucky Conference—Henry B. Bascom and
Edward Stevenson.

Missourt.—William Patton and Andrew Mon-
roe.

Holston. — Thomas K. Catlett and Thomas
Stringfield.

Tennessee.—Robert Paine and Fountain E. Pitts.

North Carolina.—Hezekiah G. Leigh and Peter
Doub.

Memphis——George W. D. Harris and Moses
Brock.

Arkansas.—John Harrell and John F. Truslow.

Virginia.—John Early and William A. Smith.

Mississippi William Winans and Benjamin M.
Drake.

Texas.—Francis Wilson and Littleton Fowler.

Alabama.—Jefferson Hamilton and Jesse Boring.

Georgia.—Lovick Pierce and Augustus B. Long-
street.

South Carolina.—William Capers and William
M. Wightman.

Florida.—Thomas C. Benning and Peyton P.
Smith.

Indian Mission—Hdward T. Peery and David
B. Cumming.

Soon after the appointment of the Committee
on Organization, religious exercises ensued, in
M. EL. Church, South. 431

which Dr. Capers, William Burke, Bishop Morris,
and Bishop Soule, took the lead.

On Monday, the Sth, on motion of Dr. William
Winans, it was

“Resolved, That the Committee on Organization
be instructed to inquire whether or not any thing
has transpired, during the past year, to render it
possible to maintain the unity of the Methodist
Episcopal Church, under the same General Confer-
ence jurisdiction, without the ruin of Southern
Methodism.”

On motion of Benjamin M. Drake, it was

“Resolved, That the Committee on Organization
be, and are hereby, instructed to inquire into the
propriety of reporting resolutions in case a division
should take place, leaving the way open for re-
union on terms which shall not compromise the
interest of the Southern, and which shall meet, as
far as may be, the views of the WVorthern portion
of the Church.”

Dr. William A. Smith and Dr. Lovick Pierce
presented the following resolution, which at their
request was laid on the table to be taken up to-
morrow morning:

“Resolved, By the delegates of the several An-
nual Conferences in the Southern and South-west-
ern States, in General Convention assembled, That
we cannot sanction the action of the late General
Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, on
432 Organization of the

the subject of slavery, by remaining under the
ecclesiastical jurisdiction of that body, without
deep and lasting injury to the interests of the
Church and the country; we, therefore, hereby
instruct the Committee on Organization, that if
upon a careful examination of the whole subject,
they find that there is no reasonable ground to
hope that the Northern majority will recede from
their position and give some safe guaranty for the
future security of our civil and ecclesiastical rights,
that they report in favor of a separation from the
ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the said General Con-
ference.”

The resolution offered by Drs. Smith and Pierce
was supported by speeches from Dr. Smith, Dr.
Pierce, Dr. Capers, Lewell Campbell, Dr. Long-
street, Samuel Dunwody, Dr. Paine, G. F. Pierce,
and Thomas Crowder.

On Tuesday, the 13th of May, the following
resolution was offered by James E. Evans, of
Georgia:

“Resolved, That in the judgment of the Conven-
tion, it is not necessary that the general causes
and necessities for a separate organization should
be discussed any longer—unless some members
from the border Conferences should think it neces-
sary to do so, in order to represent their portion
of the Church correctly.”

On this resolution speeches were made by
M. E. Church, South. 433

George W. Brush, H. H. Kavanaugh, Thomas
Stringfield, William Patton, Andrew Monroe,
and William Gunn.

On the 14th, the resolution of Mr. Evans was
taken up, and speeches were made by Fountain E.,
Pitts, of the Tennessee Conference, Moses Brock,
William McMahon, and George W. D. Harris, of
the Memphis, William Gunn and Benjamin T.
Crouch, of the Kentucky, Dr. Smith, of the Vir-
ginia, and Thomas K. Catlett, of the Holston.

The resolution of James E. Evans was then
withdrawn, and the one offered by William A.
Smith was again taken up, and supported in a few
remarks by Joseph Boyle and Jesse Green, of Mis-
souri, and Littleton Fowler, of Texas. The reso-
lution was then adopted, with one dissenting vote.

On the 15th of May, it was announced that the
Committee on Organization were prepared to make
their report. They submitted the following, which
was read by Rev. Henry B. Bascom, D.D., the
Chairman of the Committee :

The committee appointed to inquire into the
propriety and necessity of a separate organization
of the Annual Conferences of the Methodist Epis-
copal Church, in the slaveholding States, for the
purpose of a separate General Conference connec-
tion and jurisdiction, within the limits of said States

and Conferences, having had the entire subject
19
434 “Organization of the

under careful and patient consideration, together
with the numerous petitions, instructions, resolu-
tions, and propositions for adjustment and compro-
mise, referred to them by the Convention, offer the
following as their

REPORT:

In view of the extent to which the great ques-
tions in controversy, between the North and the
South of the Methodist Episcopal Church, have
been discussed, and by consequence must be un-
derstood by the parties more immediately inter-
ested, it has not been deemed necessary by the
committee to enter into any formal or elaborate
examination of the general subject, beyond a plain
and comprehensive statement of the facts and
principles involved, which may place it in the
power of all concerned to do justice to the con-
victions and motives of the Southern Church, in
resisting the action of the late General Conference
on the subject of slavery, and its unconstitutional
assumption of right and power in other respects ;
and also presenting, in a form as brief and lucid
as possible, some of the principal grounds of action,
had in view by the South, in favoring the provis-
ional Plan of Separation, adopted by the General
Conference at its last session.

On the subject of the legitimate right, and the
full and proper authority, of the Convention to in-
stitute, determine, and finally act upon the in-
M. EF. Church, South. 435

quiry referred to the committee to deliberate and
report upon, the committee entertain no doubt
whatever. Apart from every other consideration
which might be brought to bear upon the question,
the General Conference of 1844, in the Plan of
Jurisdictional Separation adopted by that body,
gave full and express authority to “the Annual
Conferences in the slaveholding States,” to judge
of the propriety, and decide upon the necessity,
of organizing a “separate ecclesiastical connec-
tion” in the South. And not only did the General
Conference invest this right in “the Annual Con-
ferences in the slaveholding States,” without lim-
itation or reserve, as to the eztent of the invest-
ment, and exclusively with regard to every other
division of the Church, and all other branches or
powers of the government, but left the method of
official determination and the mode of action, in
the exercise or assertion of the right, to the free
and untrammeled discretion of the Conferences
interested. These Conferences, thus accredited
by the General Conference to judge and act for
themselves, confided the right and trust of decision
and action in the premises to delegates regularly
chosen by these bodies respectively, upon a uni-
form principle and fixed ratio of representation,
previously agreed upon by each, in constitutional
session, and directed them to meet in general con-
vention, in the city of Louisville, May, 1845, for
436 Organization of the

this and other purposes, authorized by the Gen-
eral Conference, at the same time and in the same
way. All the right and power, therefore, of the
General Conference, in any way connected with
the important decision in question, were duly and
formally transferred to “the Annual Conferences
in the slaveholding States,” and exclusively in-
vested in them. And as this investment was ob-
viously for the purpose that such right and power
might be exercised by them, in any mode they
might prefer, not inconsistent with the terms and
conditions of the investment, the delegates thus
chosen, one hundred in number, and representing
sixteen Annual Conferences, under commission of
the General Conference, here and now assembled
in Convention, have not only all the right and
power of the General Conference, as transferred
to “the Annual Conferences in the slaveholding
States,” but in addition, all the right and power
of necessity inherent in these bodies, as constitu-
ent parties, giving birth and power to the General
Conference itself, as the common federal council
of the Church. It follows hence, that for all the
purposes specified and understood in this prelimi-
nary view of the subject, the Convention possesses
all the right and power both of the General Con-
ference and the sixteen “Annual Conferences in
the slaveholding States,” jointly and severally
considered. The ecclesiastical and conventional
M. E. Church, South. 437

right, therefore, of this body to act in the prem-
ises, and act conclusively, irrespective of the whole
Church—and all its powers of government beside
—is clear and undoubted. As the moral right,
however, to act as proposed in the General Con-
ference Plan of Jurisdictional Separation, rests
upon entirely different grounds, and will, perhaps,
be considered as furnishing the only allowable
warrant of action, notwithstanding constitutional
right, it may be necessary at least to glance at
the grave moral reasons creating the necessity,
the high moral compulsions by which the South-
ern Conferences and Church have been impelled
to the course of action, which it is the intention
of this Report to explain and vindicate, as not
only right and reasonable, but indispensable to
the character and welfare of Southern Methodism.

The preceding statements and reasoning present
no new principle or form of action in the history
of the Church. Numerous instances might be
cited, in the constitutional history of Church-
polity, in which high moral necessity, in the ab-
sence of any recognized conventional right, has
furnished the only and yet sufficient warrant for
ecclesiastical movements and arrangements, pre-
cisely similar in character with that contemplated
in the plan of a separate Southern Connection of
the Methodist Episcopal Church, adopted by the
late General Conference. Wesleyan Methodism,
438 Organization of the

in all its phases and aspects, is a most pertinent
illustration of the truth we assume, and the fitness
and force of the example must go far to preclude
the necessity of any other proof. It was on the
specific basis of such necessity, without conven-
tional right, that the great Wesleyan Connection
arose in England. It was upon the same basis,
as avowed by Wesley, that the American Connec-
tion became separate and independent; and this
Connection again avows the same principle of
action, in the separation and establishment of a
Methodist Episcopal Church in Canada, whose or-
ganization took place by permission and direction
of the same authority under which this Conven-
tion is now acting for a similar purpose.

Should it appear, in the premises of the action
proposed, that a high moral and religious duty is
devolved upon the ministry and membership of
the Methodist Episcopal Church in the South—
devolved upon us by the great Head of the Church,
and the providential appointments of our social
condition, which we cannot neglect without infi-
delity to a high moral trust, but which we cannot
fulfill in connectional union with the Northern por-
tion of the Church, under the same General Con-
ference jurisdiction, owing to causes connected
with the civil institutions of the country, and be-
yond the control of the Church, then a strong
moral necessity is laid upon us, which assumes
M. FE. Church, South. 489

the commanding character of a positive duty,
under sanction of divine right, to dissolve the
ties and bonds of a single General Conference
jurisdiction, and in its place substitute one in the
South, which will not obstruct us in the perform-
ance of duty, or prevent us from accomplishing
the great objects of the Christian ministry and
Church-organization. From a careful survey of
the entire field of facts and their relations—the
whole range of cause and effect, as connected with
the subject-matter of this Report—it is confidently
believed that the great warrant of moral necessity,
not less than unquestionable ecclesiastical right,
fully justifies this Convention in the position they
are about to take, as a separate organic division
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, by authority
of its chief synod, “the delegates of all the sev-
eral Annual Conferences in General Conference
assembled.” One of the two main issues, which
have decided the action of the Southern Confer-
ences, relates, as all know, to the assumed right
of the Church to control the question of slavery,
by means of the ordinary and fluctuating provis-
ions of Church-legislation, without reference to the
superior control of State policy and civil law.
From all the evidence accessible in the case, the
great masses of the ministry and membership of
the Methodist Episcopal Church, North and South,
present an irreconcilable opposition of conviction
440 Organization of the

and feeling on the subject of slavery, so far as re-
lates to the rights of the Church to interfere with
the question—the one claiming unlimited right of
interference to the full extent the Church may, at
any time, or from any cause, be concerned, and the
other resisting alike the assumption or exercise of
any such right, because, in nearly all the slave-
holding States, such a course of action must bring
the Church in direct conflict with the civil author-
ity, to which the Church has pledged subjection
and support in the most solemn and explicit forms,
and from the obligations of which she cannot re-
treat without dishonoring her own laws, and the
neglect and violation of some of the plain and
most imperative requirements of Christianity.
Under such circumstances of disagreement—in
such a state of adverse conviction and feeling on
the part of the North and South of the Church—
it is believed that the two great sections of the
Church, thus situated in relation to each other
by causes beyond the control of either party, can-
not remain together and successfully prosecute
the high and common aims of the Christian minis-
try and Church-organization under the same Gen-
eral Conference jurisdiction. The manifest want
of uniformity of opinion and harmony of codpera-
tion must always lead, as heretofore, to struggles
and results directly inconsistent with the original
intention of the Church, in establishing a common
M. E. Church, South. 441

jurisdiction, to control all its general interests.
And should it appear that, by a division and fu-
ture duality of such jurisdiction as authorized by
the late General Conference, the original purposes
of the Church can better be accomplished, or
rather, that they can be accomplished in no other
‘way, how can the true and proper unity of the
Church be maintained except by yielding to the
necessity, and having a separate General Confer-
ence jurisdiction for each division? By the South-
ern portion of the Church generally, slavery is re-
garded as strictly a civil institution, exclusively in
custody of the civil power, and as a regulation of
State beyond the reach of Church-interference or
control, except as civil law and right may be
infringed by ecclesiastical assumption. By the
Northern portion of the Church, individuals are
held responsible for the alleged cnjustice and evil
of relations and rights, created and protected by
the organic and municipal laws of the Government
and country, and which relations and rights, in
more than two-thirds of the slaveholding States,
are not under individual control in any sense or to
any extent.

Both portions of the Church are presumed to
act from principle and conviction, and cannot,
therefore, recede; and how, under such circum-
stances, is it possible to prevent the most fearful

disunion, with all the attendant evils of contention
19*
442 Organization of the

and strife, except by allowing each section a sep-
arate and independent jurisdiction, the same in
character and purpose with the one to which both
have hitherto been subject? What fact, truth, or
principle, not merely of human origin, and there-
fore of doubtful authority, can be urged as inter- .
posing any reasonable obstacle to a change of ju-
risdiction, merely modal in character, and simply
designed to adapt a single principle of Church-gov-
ernment, not pretended to be of divine obligation
or Scripture origin, to the character and features
of the civil government of the country? Nothing
éssential to Church-organization—nothing essen-
tially distinctive of Methodism—even American
Methodism, is proposed to be disturbed, or even
touched, by the arrangement. It is a simple di-
vision of general jurisdiction, for strong moral rea-
sons, arising out of the civil relations and posi-
tion of the parties, intended to accomplish for
both what it is demonstrated by experiment can-
not be accomplished by one common jurisdiction,
as now constituted, and should therefore, under
the stress of such moral necessity, be attempted
in some other way.

The question of slavery, more or less intimately
interwoven with the interests and destiny of nine
millions of human beings in the United States, is
certainly of sufficient importance, coming up as it
has in the recent history of the Methodist Epis-
M. EF. Church, South. 443

copal Church, and as it does in the deliberations
of this Convention, to authorize any merely modal
or even organic changes in the government of the
Church, should it appear obvious that the original
and avowed purposes of the Church will be more
effectively secured and promoted by the change
proposed, than by continuing the present or former
system. The evidence before the committee es-
tablishes the fact in the clearest manner possible,
that throughout the Southern Conferences, the min-
istry and membership of the Church, amounting to
nearly 500,000, in the proportion of about ninety-
five in the hundred, deem a division of jurisdiction
indispensable to the welfare of the Church, in the
Southern and South-western Conferences of the
slaveholding States; and this fact alone must go
far to establish the right, while it demonstrates the
necessity, of the separate jurisdiction contemplated
in the plan of the General Conference, and adopted
by that body in view of such necessity as likely
to exist. The interests of State, civil law, and
public opinion, in the South, imperiously require
that the Southern portion of the Church shall have
no part in the discussion and agitation of this sub-
ject in the chief councils of the Church. In this
opinion, nearly universal in the South, we concur.

Christ and his apostles—Christianity and its in-
spired and early teachers—found slavery in its most
offensive and aggravated forms, as a civil institu-
444. Organization of the

tion, diffused and existing throughout nearly the
entire field of their ministrations and influence ;
and yet, in the New Testament, and earlier records
of the Church, we have no legislation—no inter-
ference—no denunciation with regard to it—not
even remonstrance against it. They found it
wrought up and vitally intermingled with the
whole machinery of civil government and order of
society—so implicated with “the powers that be,”
that infinite wisdom, and the early pastoral guides
of the Church, saw just reason why the Church
should not interfere beyond a plain and urgent
enforcement of the various duties growing out of
the peculiar relation of master and slave, leaving
the relation itself, as a civil arrangement, untouched
and unaffected, except so far as it seems obviously
to have been the divine purpose to remove every
form and degree of wrong and evil connected with
the institutions of human government, by a faith-
ful inculcation of the doctrines and duties of
Christianity, without meddling in any way with
the civil polity of the countries into which it was
introduced. A course precisely similar to this,
the example of which should have been more at-
tractive, was pursued by the great founder of
Methodism, in all slaveholding countries in which
he established societies. Mr. Wesley never deemed
it proper to have any rule, law, or regulation on
the subject of slavery, either in the United States,
M. EF. Church, South. 445

the West Indies, or elsewhere. The effects of the
early and unfortunate attempts of the Methodist
Church to meddle and interfere, in the legislation
and practice of government and discipline, with
the institution of slavery in the United States,
are too well known to require comment. Among
the more immediate results of this short-sighted,
disastrous imprudence, especially from 1780 to
1804, may be mentioned the watchful jealousy of
civil government, and the loss of public confidence
throughout a very large and influential portion of
the whole Southern community. These, and simi-
lar developments, led the Church, by the most
careful and considerate steps, to the adoption,
gradually, of a medium compromise course of
legislation on the subject, until the law of slavery,
as it now exists in the /et¢er of Discipline, became,
by the last material act of legislation in 1816, the
great compromise bond of union between the North
and the South on the subject of slavery. The
whole law of the Church, all there is in the stat-
ute-book to govern North and South on this sub-
ject, is the following: J%rst. The general rule,
which simply prohibits “the buying and selling of
men, women, or children, with an intention to en-
slave them.” Second. “No slaveholder shall be
eligible to any official station in our Church here-
after, where the laws of the State in which he
lives admit of emancipation, and permit the liber-
446 Organization of the

ated slave to enjoy freedom. When any traveling
preacher becomes an owner of a slave, or slaves,
by any means, he shall forfeit his ministerial char-
acter 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.”

Here is the law, the whole, the only, law of the
Church, containing first, a prohibition, and second,
a grant. The prohibition is, that no member or
minister of the Church is allowed to purchase or
sell a human being, who is to be enslaved, or re-
duced to a state of slavery, by such purchase or
sale. And farther, that no minister, in any of the
grades of ministerial office, or other person, having
official standing in the Church, can, if he be the
owner of a slave, be allowed to sustain such offi-
cial relation to the Church, unless he shall legally
provide for the emancipation of such slave or
slaves, if the laws of the State in which he lives
will admit of legal emancipation, and permit the
liberated slave to enjoy freedom. Such is the
plain prohibition of law, binding upon all. The
grant of the law, however, is equally plain and
unquestionable. It is, that persons may purchase
or sell men, women, or children, provided such
purchase or sale does not involve the fact or in-
tention of enslaving them, or of reducing the sub-
jects of such purchase or sale ¢o a state of slavery.
M. E. Church, South. 447

The intention of the law no doubt is, that this
may be done from motives of humanity, and not
by any means for the purpose of gain. But, far-
ther, the law distinctly provides, that every min-
ister, in whatever grade of office, and every person
having official standing of any kind, in the Method-
ist Episcopal Church, being the owner or owners
of slave property, shall be protected against any
forfeiture of right, on this account, where the
laws of the State do not admit of legal emancipa-
tion, and allow the liberated slave to enjoy free-
dom in the State in which he is emancipated.
Here is the plain grant of law to which we allude.
From the first agitation of the subject of slavery
in the Church, the Northern portion of it has been
disposed to insist upon farther prohibitory enact-
ments. The South, meanwhile, has always shown
itself ready to go as far, by way of prohibition,
as the law in question implies, but has uniformly
resisted any attempt to impair Southern rights
under protection of the grant of law to which we
have asked attention. Under such circumstances
of disagreement and difficulty, the conventional
and legislative adjustment of the question, as
found in the General Rule, but especially the tenth
section of the Discipline, was brought about, and
has always been regarded in the South as a great
compromise arrangement, without strict adherence
to which the North and the South could not re-
448 Organization of the

main together under the same general jurisdiction.
That we have not mistaken the character of the
law, or misconstrued the intention and purposes
of its enactment, at different times, we think en-
tirely demonstrable from the whole history, both
of the legislation of the Church and the judicial
and executive administration of the Government.
The full force and bearing of the law, however,
were more distinctly brought to view, and author-
itatively asserted, by the General Conference of
1840, after the most careful examination of the
whole subject, and the judicial determination of
that body, connected with the language of the
Discipline just quoted, gives in still clearer light
the true and only law of the Church on the subject
of slavery. After deciding various other princi-
ples and positions incidental to the main question,
the decision is summed up in the following words:

“While the general rule (or law) on the subject
of slavery, relating to those States whose laws
admit of emancipation, and permit the liberated
slave to enjoy freedom, should be firmly and con-
stantly enforced, the exception to the general rule
(or law) applying to those States where emanci-
pation, as defined above, is not practicable, should
be recognized and protected with equal firmness
and impartiality; therefore,

“Resolved, by the several Annual Conferences in
General Conference assembled, That under the pro-
M. E. Church, South. 449

visional exception of the general rule (or law) of
the Church, on the subject of slavery, the simple
holding of slaves, or mere ownership of slave prop-
erty, in States or Territories where the laws do
not admit of emancipation and permit the liber-
ated slave to enjoy freedom, constitutes no legal
barrier to the election or ordination of ministers
to the various grades of office known in the min-
istry of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and can-
not, therefore, be considered as operating any for-
feiture of right, in view of such election and ordi-
nation.”

This decision of the General Conference was not
objected to or dissented from by a single member
of that body. It was the unanimous voice of the
great representative and judical council of the
Church then acting in the character of a high
court of appeals for the decision of an important
legal question. It will be perceived how strik-
ingly the language of this decision accords with
both the features of the law of slavery which we
have thought it important to notice, the prohibition
and the grant of law in the case; what may not
be done as the general rule, and at the same time
what may be done, under the provisional exception
to the general law, without forfeiture of right of
any kind. It is also worthy of particular notice,
that beside the plain assurance of the original law,
that where emancipation is not legally practicable,
450 Organization of the

and the emancipated slave-allowed to enjoy free-
dom, or where it is practicable to emancipate, but
the emancipated slave cannot enjoy freedom, eman-
cipation is not required of any owner of slaves in
the Methodist Episcopal Church, from the lowest
officer up to the Bishop, but the rights of all thus ©
circumstanced are protected and secured, notwith-
standing their connection with slavery. Besides
this, the full and elaborate decision of the General
Conference as a grave and formal adjudication had
upon all the issues involved in the question, pub-
lished to all who were in, or might be disposed to
enter, the Church, that the law of slavery applied
to States where emancipation is impracticable, and
the freed slave not allowed to enjoy freedom, this
clear and unambiguous decision, by the highest
authority of the Church, /eaves the owner of slaves
upon the ground—upon a basis of the most per-
fect equality with other ministers of the Church,
having no connection with slavery. Such, then,
is the law; such its construction; such the official
and solemn pledge of the Church. And these
had, to a great extent, restored the lost confidence
and allayed the jealous apprehensions of the South,
in relation to the purposes of the Church respect-
ing slavery. There was in the South no dispo-
sition to disturb, discuss, or in any way agitate
the subject. The law was not objected to or com-
plained of, but was regarded as a settled compro-
M. E. Church, South. 451

mise betweén the parties, a medium arrangement
on the ground of mutual concession, well calcu-
lated to secure and promote the best interests of
the Church, North and South.

That this law, this great compromise conserva-
tive arrangement, which had been looked to as the
only reliable bond of jurisdictional union between
the North and South for nearly half a century,
was practically disregarded and abandoned by the
last General Conference, in the memorable cases
of Harding and Andrew, both by judicial construc-
tion and virtual legislation, manifestly inconsistent
with its provisions and purposes, and subversive
of the great objects of its enactment, has been
too fearfully demonstrated by various forms of
proof, to require more than a brief notice in this
Report. The actual position of the Church was
suddenly reversed, and its long-established policy
entirely changed. The whole law of the Church,
and the most important adjudications had upon it,
were treated as null and obsolete, and that body
proceeded to a claim of right and course of action
amounting to a virtual repeal of all law, and new
and capricious legislation on the most difficult and
delicate question ever introduced into the coun-
cils of the Church or named upon its statute-book.

By no fair construction of the law of slavery,
as given above, could the Church be brought in
conflict with civil legislation on the subject. It
452 Organization of the

is true, as demanded by the convictions and opin-
ions of the Church, testimony was borne against
the evil of slavery, but it was done without con-
flicting with the polity and laws of any portion of
the country. No law, for example, affected the
lay-membership of the Church with regard to
slaveholding; the Church gave its full permission
that the private members of the Church might
own and hold slaves at discretion; and the infer-
ence is indubitable, that the Church did not con-
sider simple slaveholding as a moral evil, person-
ally attaching to the mere fact of being the owner
or holder of slaves. The evil charged upon slav-
ery must of necessity have been understood of
other aspects of the subject, and could not imply
moral obliquity, without impeaching the integrity
and virtue of the Church. Moreover, where the
laws precluded emancipation, the ministry were
subjected to no disabilities of any kind, and the
requirements of the Church, in relation to slavery,
were not at.least in any thing like direct conflict
with civil law. In contravention, however, of the
plain and long-established law of the Church, the
action of the General Conference of 1844, in the
well-known instances cited, brought the Church
into a state of direct and violent antagonism with
the civil authority and the rights of citizenship,
throughout all the slaveholding States. This was
not done by the repeal of existing law, or ‘addi-
M. E. Church, South. 453

tional legislation by direct enactment, but in a
much more dangerous form, by the simple process
of resolution by an irresponsible majority, requir-
ing Southern ministers, as slaveholders, in order
to Church eligibility and equality of right with
non-slaveholding ministers of the Church, to do
what cannot be done without a violation of the
laws of the States in which they reside, and is
not required or contemplated, but expressly ex-
cepted, and even provided against, by the law of
the Church.

It will thus appear that the entire action of the
General Conference on the subject of slavery was
in direct conflict with the law, both of the Church
and the land, and could not have been submitted
to by the South without the most serious detri-
ment to the interests of the Church. The action
in the instance of Bishop Andrew was, in the
strongest and most exceptional sense, extrajudi-
cial. It was not pretended that Bishop Andrew
had violated any law of the Church; so far from
this, the only law applicable to the case, gave, as
we have seen, ample and explicit assurance of pro-
tection. So to construe law, or so proceed to act
without reference to law, as to abstract from it its
whole protective power, and deprive it of all its
conservative tendencies in the system, is one of
the most dangerous forms of legal injustice, and,
as a principle of action, must be considered as
454 Organization of the

subversive of all order and government. The late
General Conference required of Bishop Andrew,
the same being equally true in the case of Hard-
ing, as‘the condition of his being acceptable to the
Church, the surrender of rights secured to him,
both by civil and ecclesiastical law. The pur-
poses of law were contravened and destroyed, and
its prerogative and place usurped by mere opinion.

The requisition in the case was not only extra-
judicial, being made in the absence of any thing
like law authorizing the measure, but being made
at the same time against law, it was usurpation ;
and so far as the proceeding complained of is in-
tended to establish a principle of action with re-
gard to the future, it gives to the General Confer-
ence all the attributes of a despotism, claiming
the right to govern without, above, and against law.
The doctrine avowed at the late General Confer-
ence, and practically indorsed by the majority,
that that body may, by simple resolution, advisory,
punitive, or declaratory, repeal an existing law in
relation to a particular case, leaving it in full force
with regard to other cases; or may enact a new
and different law, and apply it judicially to the
individual case, which led to the enactment, and
all in a moment, by a single elevation of the hand,
is a position—a doctrine—so utterly revolutionary
and disorganizing, as to place in jeopardy at once,
both the interests and reputation of the Church.
M. E. Church, South. 455

The action in the case of Bishop Andrew not only
assumed the character and usurped the place of
law, but was clearly an instance of ex post facto
legislation, by making that an offense after the
act which was not such before. The conduct
charged as an offense was at the time, and contin-
ues to be, under the full protection of a well-un-
derstood and standing law of the Church; and yet
this conduct was made criminal and punishable by
the retrospective action of the Conference to which
we allude. The officially expressed will of the
General Conference intended to govern and cir-
cumscribe the conduct of Bishop Andrew, without
reference to existing law, and indeed contrary to
it, was made the rule of action, and he found guilty
of its violation, by acts done before he was made
acquainted with it. The conduct charged was in
perfect consistency with the law of the Church,
and could only be wrought into an offense by an
ex post facto bearing of the after-action of the
General Conference.

Bishop Andrew became the owner of slave
property, involuntarily, several years before his
marriage; and as the fact, and not the extent, of
his connection with slavery constituted his offense,
it follows that, for a relation in which he was
placed by the action of others, and the operation
of civil law, and in which, as a citizen of Georgia,
he was compelled to remain, or be brought in con-
456 Organization of the

flict with the laws of the State, he was, in viola-
tion of the pledge of public law, as we have
shown, arrested and punished ‘by the General
Conference. That body, by direct requirement,
such at least by implication, commanded him to
free his slaves, or suffer official degradation. The
law of Georgia required him to hold his slaves, or
transfer them to be held as such by others under
heavy and painful penalties to master and slave.
To avoid ecclesiastical punishment and disability,
the Church required him either to leave the State
of his residence, or violate its laws. In this way,
taking the judicial decision in Harding’s case, and
the anomalous action in Bishop Andrew's, the
Church is placed in most offensive conflict with
the civil authority of the State. Can any coun-
try or government safely allow the Church to en-
force disobedience to civil law, as a Christian duty?
If such attempts are made to subordinate the
civil interests of the State to the schemes and
purposes of Church innovation, prompted and
sustained by the bigotry and fanaticism of large
masses of ignorant and misguided zealots engaged
in the conflict in the name of God and conscience,
and for the ostensible purposes of religious reform,
what can be the stability of. civil government, or
the hopes of those seeking its protection? And
what, we ask, must be the interest of the South
in connection with such movements?
M. EF. Church, South. 457

In the instance of slavery in this country, it is
but too well known, that such antagonism as is
indicated by the preceding facts and developments
between the purposes of the Church and the pol-
icy of the State, must result in the most disas-
trous consequences to both. The slavery of the
Southern States can never be reduced in amount
or mitigated in form by such a state of things.
The Southern States have the sole control of the
question, under the authority and by contract of
the Federal Constitution, and all hope of removing
the evil of slavery, without destroying the national
compact and the union of the States, must connect
with the individual sovereignty of the Southern
States, as parties to the Federal compact, and the
independent policy of each State in relation to
slavery, as likely to be influenced by moral and
political reasons, and motives, brought to bear, by
proper means and methods, upon the understand-
ing and moral sense of the Southern people. All
trespass upon right, whether as it regards the
rights of property or of character—every thing
like aggression, mere denunciation or abuse—must
of necessity tend to provoke farther resistance on
the part of the South, and lessen the influence
the North might otherwise have upon the great
mass of the Southern people, in relation to this
great and exciting interest. The true character

and actual relations of slavery in the United
20
458 Organization of the

States are so predominantly civil and political that
any attempt to treat the subject, or control the
question, upon purely moral and ecclesiastical
grounds, can never exert any salutary influence
South, except in so far as the moral and ecclesias-
tical shall be found strictly subordinate to the
civil and political. This mode of appeal, it is be-
lieved, will never satisfy the North. The whole
Northern portion of the Church, speaking through
their guides and leaders, is manifesting an increas-
ing- disposition to form issues upon the subject, so
utterly inconsistent with the rights and peace of
the slaveholding States, that by how far the Meth-
odist Episcopal Church in the South may contrib-
ute to the bringing about of such a state of things,
or may fail to resist it, the influence of Method-
ism must be depressed, and the interest of the
Church suffer. In addition, then, to the fact that
we have already received an amount of injury
beyond what we can bear, except under a sepa-
rate organization, we have the strongest grounds
of apprehension, that unless we place ourselves in
a state of defense and prepare for independent
action, under the distinct jurisdiction we are now
authorized by the General Conference to resolve
upon, and organize, we shall soon find ourselves
so completely subjected to the adverse views and
policy of the Northern majority, as to be left
without right or remedy, except as a mere seces-
M. E. Church, South. 459

sion from the Church. Now, the case is entirely
different, as we propose to do nothing not author-
ized in the General Conference Plan of Separa-
tion, either expressly or by necessary implication.
The general view thus far taken. of the subject is
intended to show that “the Annual Conferences
in the slaveholding States,” embracing the entire
Church, South, have found themselves placed in
circumstances, by the action of the General Con-
ference in May last, which, according to the declar-
ation of the Southern delegates, at the time, ren-
der it impracticable to accomplish the objects of
the Christian ministry and Church- organization,
under the present system of General Conference
control, and showing, by the most clear and con-
* clusive evidence, that there exists the most urgent
necessity for the “separate ecclesiastical connec-
tion,” constitutionally provided for by the General
Conference upon the basis of the Declaration just
adverted to. At the date of the Declaration the
Southern delegates were fully convinced that the
frequent and exciting agitation and action in that
body on the subject of slavery and abolition, as
in Harding’s case, and especially the proceedings
in the case of Bishop Andrew—each being regarded
as but a practical exposition of the principle of
the majority—rendered a separate organization in-
dispensable to the success of Methodism in the
South. The truth of the Declaration, so far from
460 Organization of the

being called in question by the majority, was
promptly conceded in the immediate action the
Conference had upon it, assigning the Declaration
as the sole ground or reason of the action, which
terminated in the adoption of the Plan of Sepa-
ration, under which we are now acting as a Con-
vention, and from the spirit and intention of which
it is believed to be the purpose of the Convention
not to depart in any of its deliberations or final
acts. Although the action of this General Con-
ference on the subject of slavery, and the rela-
tive adverse position of the parties North and
South, together with the irritating and exasper-
ating evils of constant agitation and frequent at-
tempts at legislation, are made in the Declaration _
the grounds of the avowal, that a separate organi-
zation was necessary to the success of the minis-
try in the slaveholding States, it was by no means
intended to convey the idea, or make the impres-
sion, that no other causes existed rendering a
separate organization proper and necessary; but
as the action of the Conference on the subject of
slavery was certain to involve the Church in the
South in immediate and alarming difficulty, and
it was believed that this could be so shown to the
majority as to induce them to consent to some
course of action in remedy of the evil, the com-
plaint of the Declaration was confined to the sim-
ple topic of slavery. It will be perceived that
M. E. Church, South. 461

the case of Bishop Andrew, although prominently
introduced, is not relied upon as exclusively fur-
nishing the data of this conclusion at which we
have arrived. The entire action the General Con-
ference so frequently brought to view, and which
is made the ground of dissent and action, both in
the Protest and Declaration of the Southern Dele-
gates, must be understood as belonging to the
premises and language employed as including all
the principles avowed, as well as the action had
by the late General Conference on the subject of
slavery. The attempt to disclaim the judicial
character of the action in Bishop Andrew’s case,
and show it to be merely advisory, cannot affect
the preceding reasoning; for, first, the disclaimer
is as equivocal in character as the original action;
and, secondly, the reasoning in support of the dis-
claimer negatives the supposition of mere advice,
because it involves issues coming legitimately
within the province of judicial process and legal
determination; and, thirdly, Bishop Andrew is, by
the explanation of the disclaimer itself, held as
responsible for his conduct, in view of the alleged
advice, as he could have been held by the original
action without the explanation. While, therefore,
the explanation giving the original action an ad-
visory character, notwithstanding the inconsistency
involved, fully protects Bishops Soule and An-
drew from even the shadow of blame in the course
462 Organization of the

they have pursued, the entire action in the case,
and especially when connected with the case of
Harding; as alluded to in the Declaration, fully
sustains the general view of the subject we have
taken in this Report. The Southern delegates at
the General Conference, in presenting to that body
their Declaration and Protest, acted, and they
continue to act, as the representatives of the
South, under the full conviction that the princi-
ples and policy avowed by the Northern majority
are such as to render their public and practical re-
nunciation by the Southern Methodist ministry
and people necessary to the safety, not less than
the success, of the Church in the South.

Other views of the subject, however, must claim
a share of our attention. Among the many
weighty reasons which influence the Southern
Conferences in seeking to be released from the
jurisdiction of the General Conference of the
Methodist Episcopal Church, as now constituted,
are the novel, and, as we think, dangerous doc-
trines, 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 constitutional rights and powers
respectively of the Eprscopacy and the General Con-
ference. In relation to the first, it is confidently,
although most unaccountably, maintained that
the six short Jeestrictive Rules which were adopted
M. E. Church, South. 463

in 1808, and first became obligatory, as an amend-
ment to the constitution, in 1812, are in fact the
true and only constitution of the Church. This
single position, should it become an established
principle of action to the extent it found favor
with the last General Conference, must subvert
the government of the Methodist Episcopal Church.
It must be seen at once, that the position leaves
many of the organic laws and most important in-
stitutions of the Church entirely unprotected and
at the mercy of a mere and ever-fluctuating ma-
jority of the General Conference. Episcopacy,
for example, although protected in the abstract, in
general terms, may be entirely superseded or de-
stroyed by the simple omission to elect or con-
secrate Bishops, neither of which is provided for
in the Restrictive Articles. The whole itinerant
system, except general superintendency, is with-
out protection in the Restrictive Rules; and there
is nothing in them preventing the Episcopacy from
restricting their superintendency to ocal and set-
tled pastors, rather than a traveling ministry, and
thus destroying the most distinctive feature of
Wesleyan Methodism. So far as the Restrictive
Rules are-concerned, the Annual Conferences are
without protection, and might also be destroyed
by the General Conference at any time. If the
new constitutional theory be correct, class-leaders
and private members are as eligible, upon the
464 Organization of the

basis of the constitution, to a seat in the General
Conference as any ministers of the Church. So-
cieties, too, instead of Annual Conferences, may
elect delegates, and may elect laymen instead of
ministers, or local instead of traveling ministers.
Very few indeed of the more fundamental and
distinguishing elements of Methodism, deeply and
imperishably imbedded in the affection and vener-
ation of the Church, and vital to its very exist-
ence, are even alluded to in the Restrictive Arti-
cles. This theory assumes the self-refuted ab-
surdity, that the General Conference is in fact the
government of the Church, if not the Church it-
self. With no other constitution than these mere
restrictions upon the powers and rights of the
General Conference, the government and discipline
of the Methodist Episcopal Church as a system of
organized laws and well-adjusted instrumentalities
for the spread of the gospel and the diffusion of
piety, and whose living principles of energy and
action have so long commanded the admiration of
the world, would soon cease even to exist. The
startling assumption that a Bishop of the Methodist
Episcopal Church, instead of holding office under
the constitution, and by tenure of law, and the faith-
ful performance of duty, is nothing in his charac-
ter of Bishop but a mere officer at will of the
General Conference, and may accordingly be de-
posed at any time, with or without cause, accusa-
M. E. Church, South. 465

tion, proof, or form of trial, as a dominant majority
may capriciously elect, or party interests suggest
—and that the General Conference may do, by
right, whatever is not prohibited by the Restric-
tive Rules, and, with this single exception, possess
power, “supreme and all-controlling;” and this, in
all possible forms of its manifestation, legislative,
judicial, and executive—the same men claiming
to be at the same time both the fountain and func-
tionaries of all the powers of government, which
powers, thus mingled and concentrated into a com-
mon force, may at any time be employed, at the
prompting of their own interests, caprice, or am-
bition. Such wild and revolutionary assumptions,
so unlike the faith and discipline of Methodism,
as we have been taught them, we are compelled
to regard as fraught with mischief and ruin to the
best interests of the Church, and as furnishing a
strong additional reason why we should avail our-
selves of the warrant we now have, but may
never again obtain, from the General Conference,
to “establish an ecclesiastical connection,” em-
bracing only the Annual Conferences in the slave-
holding States.

Without intending any thing more than a gen-
eral specification of the disabilities under which
the Southern part of the Church labors, in view
of existing difficulties, and must continue to do so

until they are removed, we must not omit to state,
20*
466 Organization of the

that should we submit to the action of the late
General Conference, and decline a separate organ-
ization, it would be to place, and finally confirm,
the whole Southern ministry in the relation of an
inferior caste, the effect of which, in spite of all
effort to the contrary, would be such a relation,
if not (as we think) real degradation of the min-
istry, as to destroy its influence to a great—a
most fearful—extent throughout the South. A
practical proscription, under show of legal right,
has long been exercised toward the South, with
regard to the higher offices of the Church, espe-
cially the Episcopacy. To this, however, the
South submitted with patient endurance, and was
willing farther to submit in order to maintain the
peace and unity of the Church, while the principle
involved was disavowed, and decided to be unjust,
as by the decision of the General Conference in
1840. But when, in 1844, the General Confer-
ence declared by their action, without the forms
of legislative or judicial process, that the mere
providential ownership of slave property, in a
State where emancipation is legally prohibited
under all circumstances, and can only be effected
by special legislative enactment, was hereafter
to operate as a forfeiture of right in all similar
cases, the law of the Church and the decision
of the preceding General Conference to the
contrary notwithstanding, the Southern ministry
M. EF. Church, South. 467

were compelled to realize that they were de-
liberately fixed, by the brand of common shame,
in the degrading relation of standing inferiority
to ministers, not actually, nor yet liable to
be, connected with slavery, and that they were
published to the Church and the world as be-
longing to a caste in the ministry, from which
the higher offices of the Church could never be
selected.

To submit, under such circumstances, would
have been a practical, a most humiliating recogni-
tion of the inferiority of caste, attempted to be
fixed upon us by the Northern majority, and
would have justly authorized the inference of a
want of conscious integrity and self-respect, well
calculated to destroy both the reputation and in-
fluence of the ministry in all the slaveholding
States. It may be no virtue to avow it, but we
confess we have no humility courting the grace of
such a baptism. The higher objects, therefore, of
the Christian ministry, not less than conscious
right and self-respect, demanded resistance on the
part of the Southern ministry and Church, and
these unite with other reasons in vindicating the
plea of necessity, upon which the meeting and
action of this Convention are based, with the con-
sent and approval of the General Conference of
thé Methodist Episcopal Church. The variety of
interests involved, renders it necessary that the
468 Organization of the

brief view of the subject we are allowed to take,
be varied accordingly.

Unless the Southern Conferences organize as
proposed, it is morally certain, in view of the
evidence before the committee, that the gospel,
now regularly and successfully dispensed by the
ministers of these Conferences to about a million
of slaves, in their various fields of missionary en-
terprise and pastoral charge, must, to a great ex-
tent, be withheld from them, and immense masses
of this unfortunate class of our fellow-beings be
left to perish, as the result of Church-interference
with the civil affairs and relations of the country.

The committee are compelled to believe that
the mere division of jurisdiction, as authorized by
the General Conference, cannot affect either the
moral or legal unity of the great American family
of Christians, known as the Methodist Episcopal
Church, and this opinion is concurred in by the
ablest jurists of the country. We do nothing but
what we are expressly authorized to do by the su-
preme, or rather highest, legislative power of the
Church. Would the Church authorize us to do
wrong? The division relates only to the power
of general jurisdiction, which it is not proposed to
destroy or even reduce, but simply to invest it in
two great organs of Church-action and control,
instead of one as at present. Such a change in the
present system of general control cannot disturb
M. E. Church, South. 469

the moral unity of the Church, for it is strictly an
agreed modification of General Conference jurisdic-
tion, artd such agreement and consent of parties
must preclude the idea of disunion. In view
of what is the alleged disunion predicated? Is
the purpose and act of becoming a separate organ-
ization proof of disunion, or want of proper
Church-unity? This cannot be urged with any
show of consistency, inasmuch as “the several
Annual Conferences in General Conference assem-
bled,” that is. to say, the Church through only its
constitutional organ of action, on all subjects in-
volving the power of legislation, not only agreed to
the separate organization South, but made full con-
stitutional pro¥ision for carrying it into effect. It
is a separation by consent of parties, under the
highest authority of the Church. Is it intended
to maintain that the unity of the Church depends
upon the modal uniformity of the jurisdiction in
question? If this be so, the Methodist Episcopal
Church has lost its unity at several different
times. The general jurisdiction of the Church
has undergone modifications, at several different
times, not less vital, if not greatly more so, than
the one now proposed. The high conventional
powers, of which we are so often reminded, exer-
cised in the organization of the Methodist Epis-
copal Church, were in the’ hands of a Conference
of unordained lay-preachers, under the sole super-
470 Organization of the

intendence of an appointee of Mr. Wesley. This
was the first General Conference type and original
form of the jurisdiction in question. The juris-
dictional power now proposed by the General Con-
ference was for years exercised by small Annual
Conferences, without any defined boundaries, and
acting separately on all measures proposed for
their determination. This general power of juris-
diction next passed into the hands of the Bishops’
Council, consisting of some ten persons, where it
remained for a term of years. Next it passed
into the hands of the whole itinerant ministry, in
full connection, and was exercised by them, in
collective action, as a General Conference of the
whole body, met together at the same time. The
power was afterward vested in the whole body
of traveling Elders, and from thence finally passed
into the hands of Delegates, elected by the An-
nual Conferences, to meet and act quadrennially
as a General Conference, under constitutional re-
strictions and limitations. Here are several suc-
cessive revrganizations of General Conference ju-
risdiction, each involving a much more material
change than that contemplated in the General
Conference plan, by authority of which this Con-
vention is about to erect the sixteen Annual Con-
ferences in the slaveholding States into a separate
organization. We change no principle in the
existing theory of General Conference jurisdiction.
M. E. Church, South. A471

We distinctly recognize the jurisdiction of a dele-
gated General Conference, receiving its appoint-
ment and authority from the whole constituency
of Annual Conferences. The only change, in fact
or in form, will be that the delegates of the “An-
nual Conferences in the slaveholding States,” as
authorized in the Plan of Separation, will meet in
one General Conference assembly of their own,
and act in behalf only of their own constituency,
and in the regulation of their own affairs, consist-
ently with the good faith and fealty they owe the
authority and laws of the several States in which
they reside, without interfering with affairs beyond
their jurisdiction, or suffering foreign interference
with their own. And in proceeding to do this,
we have all the authority it was in the power of
the Methodist Episcopal Church to confer. We
have also farther example and precedent in the
history of Methodism, to show that there is noth-
ing irregular or inconsistent with Church-order or
unity in the separation proposed. The great Wes-
leyan Methodist family, everywhere one in faith
and practice, already exists under several distinct
and unconnected jurisdictions—there is no juris-
dictional or connectional union between them; and
yet it has never been pretended that these several
distinct organizations were in any sense inconsist-
ent with Church-unity. If the Southern Confer-
ences proceed, then, to the establishment of an-
472 Organization of the

other distinct jurisdiction, without any change of
doctrine or discipline, except in matters necessary
to the mere economical adjustment of the system,
will it furnish any reason for supposing that the
real unity of the Church is affected by what all
must perceive to be a simple division of jurisdic-
tion? When the Conferences in the slaveholding
States are separately organized as a distinct eccle-
siastical connection, they will only be what the Gen-
eral Conference authorized them to be. Can this
be irregular or subversive of Church-unity? Acting
undet the Provisional Plan of Separation, they
must, although a separate organization, remain in
essential union with, and be part and parcel of, the
Methodist Episcopal Church, in every scriptural
and moral view of the subject; for what they do is
with the full consent, and has the official sanction,
of the Church as represented in the General Con-
ference. The jurisdiction we are about to estab-
lish and assert as separate and independent, is
expressly declined and ceded by the General Con-
ference as originally its own, to the Southern Con-
ferences, for the specific purpose of being estab-
lished and asserted in the manner proposed. All
idea of secession, or an organization alien in right
or relation to the Methodist Episcopal Church, is
forever precluded by the terms and conditions of
the authorized Plan of Separation. In whatever
sense we are separatists or seceders, we are such
M. E. Church, South. 473

by authority—the highest authority of the Meth-
odist Episcopal Church. To whatever extent or
in whatever aspect we are not true and faithful
ministers and members of that Church, such de-
linquency or misfortune is authenticated by her
act and approval, and she declares us to be “ with-
out blame.” “Ministers of every grade and office
in the Methodist Episcopal Church may, as they
prefer, without blame, attach themselves to the
Church, South.” Bishops, Elders, and Deacons
come into the Southern organization at their own
election, under permission from the General Con-
ference, not only accredited as ministers of the
Methodist Episcopal Church, but with credentials
limiting the exercise of their functions within the
Methodist Episcopal Church. Is it conceivable that
the General Conference would so act and hold
such language in relation to an ecclesiastical con-
nection which was to be regarded as a secession
from the Church? Does not such act and language,
and the whole Plan of Separation, rather show that
as the South had asked, so the General Confer-
ence intended to authorize a simple division of its
own jurisdiction, and nothing more?

All idea of secession, or schism, or loss of right
or title, as ministers of the Methodist Episcopal
Church, being precluded by the specific grant or
authority under which we act, as well as for other
reasons assigned, many considerations might be
474 Organization of the

urged, strongly suggesting the fitness and propriety
of the separate jurisdiction contemplated, rendered
necessary, as we have seen, upon other and different
grounds; and among these the increased value of
the representative principle likely to be secured
by the change, is by no means unworthy of no-
tice. At the first representative General Confer-
ence, thirty-three years ago, each delegate repre-
sented five traveling ministers and about two
thousand members, and the body was of conve-
nient size for the transaction of business. At the
late General Conference, each delegate was the
representative of twenty-one ministers and more
than five thousand members, and the body was in-
conveniently large for the purpose of deliberation.
and action. Should the number of delegates in the
General Conference be increased with the probable
growth of the Church, the body will soon become
utterly unwieldy. Should the number be reduced,
while the ministry and membership are multiply-
ing, the representative principle would become to
be little more than nominal, and, in the same pro-
portion, without practical value. Beside that the
proposed reérgayization of jurisdiction will remedy
this evil, at least to a great extent, it will result
in the saving of much time and expense and use-
ful services to the Church, connected with the
travel and protracted sessions of the General Con-
ference, not only as regards the delegates, but also
M. E. Church, South. 475

the bench of Bishops, whose general oversight
might become much more minute and pastoral in
its character, by means of such an arrangement.
When, in 1808, the Annual Conferences resolved
upon changing the form of General Conference
jurisdiction, the precise reasons we have just no-
ticed were deemed sufficient ground and motive
for the change introduced; and as we are seeking
only a similar change of jurisdiction, although for
other purposes as well as this, the facts to which
we ask attention are certainly worthy of being
taken into the estimate of advantages likely to
result from a separate and independent organiza-
tion, especially as the ministry and membership,
since 1808, have increased full seven hundred per
centum; and should they continue to increase, in
something like the same ratio, for thirty years to
come, under the present system of General Con-
ference jurisdiction, some such change as that
authorized by the late General Conference must
be resorted to, or the Church resign itself to the
virtual extinction of the representative principle,
as an important element of government action.

In establishing a separate jurisdiction as before
defined and explained, so far from affecting the
moral oneness and integrity of the great Method-
ist body in America, the effect will be to secure a
very different result. In resolving upon a sepa-
rate Connection, as we are about to do, the one
476 Organization of the

great and controlling motive is to restore and per-
petuate the peace and unity of the Church. At
present we have neither, nor are we likely to
have, should the Southern and Northern Confer-
ences remain in connectional relation, as hereto-
fore. Inferring effects from causes known to be in
existence and active operation, agitation on the sub-
ject of slavery is certain to continue, and frequent
action in the General Conference is equally certain,
and the result, as heretofore, will be excitement
and discontent, aggression and resistance. Should
the South retire and decline all farther conflict, by
the erection of the Southern Conferences into a
separate jurisdiction, as authorized by the General
Conference plan, agitation in the Church cannot
be brought in contact with the South, and the
former irritation and evils of the controversy
must, to a great extent, cease, or at any rate so
lose their disturbing force as to become compara-
tively harmless. Should the Northern Church
continue to discuss and agitate, it will be within
their own borders and among themselves, and the
evil effects upon the South must, to say the least,
be greatly lessened. At present, the consolidation
of all the Annual Conferences under the jurisdic-
tional control of one General Conference, always
giving a decided Northern majority, places it in
the power of that majority to manage and control
the interests of the Church, in the slaveholding
M. E. Church, South. 477

States, as they see proper, and we have no means
of protection against the evils certain to be in-
flicted upon us, if we judge the future from the
past. The whole power of legislation is in the
General Conference, and as that body is now con-
stituted, the Annual Conferences of the South are
perfectly powerless in the resistance of wrong,
and have no alternative left them but uncondi-
tional submission. And such submission to the
views and action of the Northern majority on the
subject of slavery, it is now demonstrated must
bring disaster and ruin upon Southern Methodism,
by rendering the Church an object of distrust on
the part of the State. In this way, the assumed
conservative power of the Methodist Episcopal
Church, with regard to the civil union of the States,
is to a great extent destroyed, and we are com-
pelled to believe that it is the interest, and be-
comes the duty, of the Church in the South to
seek to exert such conservative influence in some
other form; and after the most mature deliberation
and careful examination of the whole subject, we
know of nothing so likely to effect the object as
the jurisdictional separation of the great Church
parties unfortunately involved in a religious and
ecclesiastical controversy about an affair of State
—a question of civil policy, over which the Church
has no control, and with which, it is believed, she
has no right to interfere. Among the nearly five
478 Organization of the

hundred thousand ministers and members of the
Conferences represented in this Convention, we do
not know one not deeply and intensely interested in
the safety and perpetuity of the National Union,
nor can we for a moment hesitate to pledge them all
against any course of action or policy not calculated,
in their judgment, ¢o render that union as immor-
tal as the hopes of patriotism would have it to be!
‘Before closing the summary view of the whole
subject taken in this Report, we cannot refrain
from a brief notice of the relations and interests
of Southern border Conferences. These, it must
be obvious, are materially different from those of
the more Southern Conferences. They do not, for
the present, feel the pressure of the strong neces-
sity impelling the South, proper, to immediate
separation. They are, however, involved with
regard to the subject-matter of the controversy,
and committed to well-defined principles, in the
same way, and to the same extent, with the most
Southern Conferences. They have with almost
perfect unanimity, by public official acts, protested
against the entire action of the late General Con-
ference on the subject of slavery, and in reference
to the relative rights and powers of Episcopacy
and the General Conference, as not only unconsti-
tutional, but revolutionary, and, therefore, dangerous
to the best interests of the Church. They have
solemnly declared, by approving and indorsing the
M. £. Church, South. 479

Declaration, the Protest, and Address of the
Southern delegates, that the objects of their min-
istry cannot be accomplished under the existing
jurisdiction of the General Conference, without
reparation for past injury and security against
future aggression; and unless the border Confer-
ences have good and substantial reason to believe
such reparation and security not only prodadle,
but so certain as to remove reasonable doubt, they
have, so far as principle and pledge are concerned,
the same motive for action with the Conferences
South of them. Against the principles thus
avowed by every one of the Conferences in ques-
tion, the antislavery and abolition of the North
have, through official Church-organs, declared the
most open and undisguised hostility, and these
Conferences are reduced to the necessity of de-
ciding upon adherence to the principles they have
officially avowed, or of a resort to expediency to
adjust difficulties in some unknown form, which
they have said could only be adjusted by substan-
tial reparation for past injury, and good and suffi-
cient warrant against future aggression. The
question is certainly one of no common interest.
Should any of the border Conferences, or Societies
South, affiliate with the North, the effect, so far as
we can see, will be to transfer the seat of war from
the remoter South to these border districts; and
what, we ask, will be the security of these districts
480 Organization of the

against the moral ravages of such a war? What pro-
tection or security will the discipline or the conserva-
tism of the Middle Conferences afford? Of what
avail were these at the last General Conference, and
has either more influence now than then? The con-
troversy of a large and rapidly-increasing portion
of the North is not so much with the South as with
the Discipline, because it tolerates slavery in any
form whatever; and should the Southern Confer-
ences remain under the present common jurisdic-
tion, or any slaveholding portions of the South
unite in the Northern Connection in the event of
division, it requires very little discernment to see
that this controversy will never cease until every
slaveholder or every abolitionist is out of the Con-
nection. Beside, the border Conferences have a
great and most delicate interest at stake in view
‘of their territorial and civil and political relations,
which it certainly behooves them to weigh well and
examine with care in coming to the final conclusion,
which is to identify them with the North or the
South. Border districts going with the North,
after and notwithstanding the action of the border
Conferences, must, in the nature of things, as
found in the Methodist Episcopal Church, affiliate,
to a great extent, with the entire aggregate of
Northern antislavery and abolition, as now em-
barked against the interests of the South—as also
with all the recent official violations of right, of
M. E. Church, South. 48]

law, and discipline, against which the South is
now contending. In doing this, they must of ne-
cessity, if we have reasoned correctly, elect and
contribute their influence to retain in the Connec-
tion of their choice all the principles and elements
of strife and discord which have so long and fear-
fully convulsed the Church. Will this be the
election of Southern border sections and districts,
or will they remain where, by location, civil and
political ties and relations, and their own avowed
principles, they properly belong, firmly planted
upon the long and well-tried platform of the Dis-
cipline of our common choice, and from which the
Methodism of the South has never manifested any
disposition to swerve? To the Discipline the
South has always been loyal. By it she has
abided in every trial. Jealously has she cherished
and guarded that “form of sound words”—the
faith, the ritual, and the government of the Church.
It was Southern defense against Northern invasion
of the Discipline, which brought on the present
struggle; and upon the Discipline, the whole
Discipline, the South proposes to organize, under
authority of the General Conference, a separate
Connection of the Methodist Episcopal Church.
This result, from first to last, has been consented
to on the part of the South with the greatest re-
luctance.

After the struggle came on, at the late General
21
482 Organization of the

Conference, the Southern delegates, as they had
often done before, manifested the most earnest
desire, and did all in their power, to maintain
jurisdictional union with the North, without sac-
rificing the interests of the South: when this was
found impracticable, a connectional union was pro-
posed, and the rejection of this by the North led
to the projection and adoption of the present Gen-
eral Conference Plan of Separation. Every over-
ture of compromise, every plan of reconciliation
and adjustment, regarded as at all eligible, or
likely to succeed, was offered by the South and
rejected by the North. All subsequent attempts
at compromise have failed in like manner, and the
probability of any such adjustment, if not extinct,
is lessening every day, and the Annual Confer-
ences in the slaveholding States are thus left to
take their position upon the ground assigned them
by the General Conference of 1844, as a distinct
ecclesiastical connection, ready and most willing
to treat with the Northern division of the Church
at any time, in view of adjusting the difficulties
of this controversy, upon terms and principles
which may be safe and satisfactory to both.

Such we regard as the true position of the An-
nual Conferences represented in this Convention.
Therefore, in view of all the principles and in-
terests involved, appealing to the Almighty Searcher
of hearts for the sincerity of our motives, and
M. L. Church, South. 483

humbly ivoking the Divine blessing upon our
action,

Be it Resolved, by the Delegates of the several
Annual Conferences of the Methodist Episcopal
Church, in the slaveholding States, in General Con-
vention: assembled, That it is right, expedient, and
necessary to erect the Annual Conferences, repre-
sented in this Convention, into a distinct ecclesias-
tical connection, separate from the jurisdiction of
the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal
Church, as at present constituted; and, accordingly,
we, the Delegates of said Annual Conferences,
acting under the Provisional Plan of Separation
adopted by the General Conference of 1844, do
solemnly declare the jurisdiction hitherto exercised
over said Annual Conferences, by the General Con-
ference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, entirely
dissolved; and that said Annual Conferences shall
be, and they hereby are constituted, a separate eccle-
siastical connection, under the Provisional Plan of
Separation aforesaid, and based upon the Discipline
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, comprehending
the doctrines, and entire moral, ecclesiastical, and
economical rules and regulations of said Discipline,
except only in so far as verbal alterations may
be necessary to a distinct organization, and to be
known by the style and title of the Methodist
Episcopal Church, South.

Resolved, That while we cannot abandon or
484 Organization of the

compromise the principles of action upon which
we proceed to a separate organization in the South;
nevertheless, cherishing a sincere desire to main-
tain Christian union and fraternal intercourse
with the Church, North, we shall always be ready
kindly and respectfully to entertain, and duly and
carefully consider, any proposition or plan having
for its object the union of the two great bodies in
the North and South, whether such proposed union
be jurisdictional or connectional.

Resolved, That this Convention request the
Bishops presiding at the ensuing sessions of the
border Conferences of the Methodist Episcopal
Church, South, to incorporate into the aforesaid
Conferences any societies or stations adjoining the
line of division, provided such societies or stations
by the majority of the members, according to the
provisions of the Plan of Separation aforesaid,
request such an arrangement.

Resolved, That Answer the 2d of 3d Section,
Chapter Ist, of the Book of Discipline, be so al-
tered and amended as to read as follows: “The
General Conference shall meet on the first of May,
in the year of our Lord 1846, in the town of
Petersburg, Va., and thenceforward, in the month
of April or May, once in four years succes-
sively, and in such place and on such day as shall
be fixed on by the preceding General Confer-
ence,” ete.
M. E. Church, South. 485

Resolved, That the first answer in the same
chapter be altered by striking out the word
“twenty-one,” and inserting in its place the word
“fourteen,” so as to entitle each Annual Confer-
ence to one delegate for every fourteen members.

Resolved, That a committee of three be ap-
pointed, whose duty it shall be to prepare and re-
port to the General Conference of 1846 a revised
copy of the present Discipline, with such changes
as are necessary to conform it to the organization
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South.

On motion of William A. Smith and William
Capers, the Report was accepted, and the Publish-
ing Committee were instructed to print one hun-
dred copies for the use of the Convention.

On Saturday morning, the 17th of May, on
motion of John Early, of the Virginia Conference,
the Report of the Committee on Organization was
taken up, and the Convention resolved to act on
it by yeas and nays—sick and absent members
being permitted to enter their votes at some sub-
sequent period during the session.

The first resolution was read, and, on motion of
John Early, was adopted, William Gunn, George
W. Taylor, and John C. Harrison, voting in the
negative.

The remaining resolutions were then taken up,
and adopted without a dissenting vote.
486 Organization of the

On the 19th of May, the Report of the Com-
mittee on Organization was taken up and adopted
as a whole, only George W. Taylor and John C.
Harrison voting in the negative.

On the same day the Committee on Organiza-
tion reported the following resolutions, which were
unanimously adopted:

“1. Resolved, That Bishops Soule and Andrew
be, and they are hereby, respectfully and cordially
requested by this Convention to unite with, and
become regular and constitutional Bishops of, the
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, upon the basis
of the Plan of Separation adopted by the late
General Conference.

“2. Resolved, That should any portion of an
Annual Conference on the line of separation, not
represented in this Convention, adhere to the
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, according to
the Plan of Separation adopted at the late Gen-
eral Conference, and elect delegates to the General
Conference of the Church in 1846, upon the basis
of representation adopted by this Convention,
they shall be accredited as members of the Gen-
eral Conference.

“3. Resolved, That a committee of three be ap-
pointed, whose duty it shall be to prepare, and
report to the General Conference of 1846, a re-
vised copy of the present Discipline, with such
changes as are necessary to conform it to the Or-
M. E. Church, South. A87

ganization of the Methodist Episcopal Church,
South.”

In reply to the invitation contained in the first
resolution the following letters were received from
Bishops Soule and Andrew:

“Dear Breturen :—I feel myself bound in good
faith to carry out the official plan of Episcopal
Visitations as settled by the Bishops in New York,
and published in the official papers of the Church,
until the session of the first General Conference
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South; from
which time it would be necessary that the plan
should be so changed as to be accommodated to
the jurisdiction of the two distinct General Con-
ferences. That when such Southern General Con-
ference shall be held, I shall feel myself fully au-
thorized by the Plan of Separation, adopted by the
General Conference of 1844, to unite myself with
the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, and if
received by the General Conference of said Church,
to exercisé the functions of the Episcopal office
within the jurisdiction of said General Conference.
“ JosHua Soute.

“ LouIsviLue, Ky., May 19, 1845.”

“Dear Breturen:—I decidedly approve the
course which the Convention has taken in estab-
lishing the Methodist Episcopal Church, South,
488 Organization of the

believing as I do most sincerely that it will tend,
under God’s blessing, to the wider spread and more
efficient propagation of the gospel of the grace
of God. Iaccept the invitation of t&e Conven-
tion to act as one of the Superintendents of the
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, and pledge
myself, in humble dependence upon Divine grace,
to use my best efforts to promote the cause of
God in the interesting and extensive field of labor
assigned me.

“May the blessing of God be upon us mutually
in our laborious field of action, and finally may
we all, with our several charges, be gathered to
the home of God and the good in heaven!

“A ffectionately your brother and fellow-laborer,

“James O. ANDREW.

“LOUISVILLE, May, 1845.”

The preparation of a Pastoral Address had been
referred to a special committee, and on the 19th
of May the following was submitted and adopted:

LovisviiLe, Ky., May 19, 1845.
To the ministers of the several Annual Confer-
ences of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South,
and to all the brethren of their pastoral oversight,
the Convention of said Annual Conferences address
this letter, with Christian salutation.
We gratefully regard it matter of congratula-
M. E. Church, South. 489

tion, beloved brethren, for which our thanks should
be offered at the throne of grace, that we have
been enabled to conduct the business confided to
us by you with great harmony, and except, per-
haps, some inconsiderable shades of difference on
points of minor import, with unexampled unanim-
ity. Our agreement on all questions of impor-
tance has probably been as perfect as the weak-
ness of human knowledge might allow or reason
should require.

For full information of all that we have done,
we refer you to the Journal of our proceedings
and the documents which accompany it, particu-
larly the Reports of the Committees on Organiza-
tion and on Missions. This latter interest we
have made the subject of a special letter, wishing
to bring it immediately to the notice of all our
Churches and congregations, (to whom we have
requested the letter might be read,) to engage
their instant liberality.

We made it a point of early inquiry, in the
course of our proceedings, to ascertain with what
unanimity the Annual Conferences represented by
us, and the entire body of the ministry and mem-
bership within their general bounds, were known
to have concurred in sustaining the Declaration
of the Southern dele#ites in the late General Con-
ference, and in approving of the plan provided by

that Conference for our being constituted a distinct
21*
490 Organization of the

ecclesiastical connection, separate from the North.
The Committee on Organization, being composed
of two members from each of the Annual Confer-
ences, were furnished with ample means of obtain-
ing satisfactory information. The members of the
committee held meetings with their several delega-
tions apart, and on a comparison of their several
reports, carefully made, it was found that, both as
to the members of the Annual Conferences and
the local ministry and membership of our entire
territory, the declaration had been sustained, and
a separate organization called for, by as great a
majority as ninety-five to five. Nor did it appear
that even five in a hundred were disposed to array
themselves against their brethren, whose interests
were identical with their own, but that part were
Northern brethren sojourning in our borders, and
part were dwelling in sections of the country where
the questions involved did not materially concern
their Christian privileges, or those of the slaves
among them. So great appears to have been the
unanimity of opinion prevailing, both among the
pastors and the people, as to the urgent necessity
of the great measure which we were deputed to
effect, by organizing on the basis of the Disci-
pline, and the plan provided by the late General
Conference, Tae Mernopist Eprscopan Cuurcu,
Souru.

That on so grave a question, concerning inter-
M. E. Church, South. 491

ests so sacred, and affecting so numerous a people,
spread over the vast extent of the country from
Missouri to the Atlantic Ocean, and from Virginia
to Texas, there should be found some who dissent,
is what we could not but expect. But that the
number dissenting should have been so small,
compared to the number of those who have re-
quired us to act, is, at least to our minds, conclu-
sive proof of the absolute necessity of this action,
as affording the only means left in our power to
preserve the Church in the more Southern States
from hopeless ruin. Indeed, the action of the late
General Conference, without the intervention of
the Declaration of the Southern delegates, and
the Provisional Plan for a separate Southern Con-
nection, must have immediately broken up all our
missions to the people of color, and subjected their
classes in most of the Southern circuits to ruinous
deprivations. Of this the evidence has been un-
questionable. And it must appear to you, breth-
ren, that for whatever reason so great an evil was
threatened for a cause which the Southern dele-
gates did nothing to produce, but resisted in the
General Conference, that evil could not fail of
being inflicted with redoubled violence, and to a
still greater extent, if we, having a platform le-
gally furnished for a separate organization, should
hesitate a moment to avail ourselves of it. It
would be, in effect, to put ourselves, in relation to

“a
492 Organization of the

the laws and policy of the Southern people, in the
same position which was so injuriously offensive
in our Northern brethren, while it could not be
pleaded in extenuation of the fault, that we were
Northern men, and ignorant of the state of affairs
at the South. Into such a position we could not
possibly put ourselves; nor can we think that rea-
sonable men would require us to do so.

We avow, brethren, and we do it with the great-
est solemnity, that while we have thus been laid
under the imperative force of an absolute neces-
sity to organize the Southern and South-western
Conferences into an independent ecclesiastical
connection, whose jurisdiction shall be exclusive
of all interference on the part of the North, we do
not withdraw from the true Christian and catholic
pale of the Methodist Episcopal Church. And
that whilst we have complained, with grievous
cause, of the power of the majority of the Gen-
eral Conference, as that power has been construed
and exercised, we have not complained, and have
no complaint, against the Church itself. The
General Conference, or a majority thereof, is not
the Church. Nor is it possible that that should
be the Methodist Episcopal Church which with-
draws the ministry of the gospel from the poor,
and turns her aside from her calling of God “to
spread Scripture holiness over these lands,” in
order to fulfill some other errand, no matter what.
M. EB. Church, South. 493

We could not be Methodists at all—as we have
been taught what Methodism is—if, with our
knowledge of its nature, its aim, its constitution,
its discipline, and of the ruin inevitable to the
work of the ministry in most of the Southern
States, if not in all of them, should we still cleave
to a Northern jurisdiction; we nevertheless could
not be persuaded to yield the gospel for a juris-
dictional affinity with brethren who, we believe
in our hearts, cannot govern us without great in-
jury to the cause of Christ in most parts of our
work. If we err, it is the spirit of Methodism
which prompts us to the error. We “call God
for a record” that, as far as we know our hearts,
we intend nothing, we desire nothing, we do noth-
ing, having any other object or aim but that the
gospel may be preached, without let or hindrance,
in all parts of our country, and especially to the
poor. ‘There is nothing belonging of right to the
Church—her doctrines, her discipline, her econ-
omy, her usages, her efficiency—which we do not
cherish in our inmost hearts. It is not the Church,
not any thing proper. to the Church, in her char-
acter as Christ’s body, and consecrated to the pro-
motion of his cause in the earth, which we would
disown, or depart from, or oppose; but only such
a position 7 the Church as some of her sons
would force us into, antagonistic to her principles,
her policy, and her calling of God. Nor yet can
494 Organization of the

we be charged with any factious or schismatic
opposition to the General Conference, for we have
done nothing, and mean to do nothing, not author-
ized by express enactment of that body, in view
of the very emergency which compels our action.

It had been too much to expect, considering the
weakness of man, that, suddenly roused to resist-
ance as the Southern Churches were by the un-
looked-for action in the cases of Bishop Andrew
and Brother Harding, there should not in some
instances have escaped expressions of resentment
and unkindness; or that, put to the defense of
the majority of the General Conference, where the
evil complained of was so serious, the advocates
of that majority should not sometimes have ex-
pressed themselves in terms which seemed harsh
and unjust. We deeply deplore it, and pray that
for the time to come such exhibitions of a morti-
fying frailty may give place to Christian modera-
tion. We invoke the spirit of peace and holiness.
That brother shall be esteemed as deserving best
who shall do most for the promotion of peace.
Surely this is a time of all others, in our day,
when we should seek and pursue peace. <A con-
tinuance of strife between North and South must
prove prejudicial on both sides. The separation
is made—formally, legally made—and let peace
ensue. In Christ’s name, let there be peace.
Whatever is needful to be done, or worth the
M. £. Church, South. 495

doing, may be done in peace. We especially ex-
hort brethren of the border Conferences and _ so-
cieties to forbear each other in love, and labor
after peace. Let every one abide by the law of
the General Conference with respect to our bounds,
and choose for himself with Christian temper, and
permit others to choose without molestation, be-
tween North and South. Our chief care should
be to maintain “the unity of the Spirit in the bond
of peace.” Methodism preserved in what makes
it one the world over—the purity of its doctrines,
the efficiency of its discipline, its unworldliness,
its zeal for God, its self-devotion—is of infinitely
greater value than a question of boundary or Gen-
eral Conference jurisdiction merely.

And now, brethren, beseeching you to receive
the word of exhortation which we have herein
briefly addressed to you, and humbly invoking the
blessings of God upon you, according to the riches
of his grace in Christ our Lord, praying for you,
as we always do, that you may abound in every
good work, and confiding in your prayers for us,
that we may be found one with you in faith and
charity at the appearing of Jesus Christ, we take
leave of you, and return from the work which we
have now fulfilled, to renew our labors with you
and among you in the Lord.

James O. Anprew, President.

Tuomas O. Summers, Secretary.
496 Organization of the

Several questions of importance, to which we
have not referred, claimed the careful considera-
tion of the Convention, among which the mission-
ary work and the subject of education were prom-
inent.

On the 19th of May, on motion of Whitefoord
Smith, it was

“Resolved, That we devoutly acknowledge the
superintending providence of God over this Con-
vention, and rejoice in the harmony which has
prevailed in all its deliberations and decisions.”

The Convention attracted no inconsiderable at-
tention during its session. Distinguished minis-
ters from all parts of the country were in attend-
ance, and watched its progress with greatest
anxiety. The large and spacious audience-room
and galleries of the old Fourth-street Church
were densely crowded, by members of the Church
and others, who listened with breathless interest
to all that was said. Full two hours were spent
in the reading of the Report of the Committee on
Organization, and frequently during this time the
silence was painful, but was frequently broken with
bursts of applause, while tears of joy coursed their
way down many a cheek.

After the close of the Convention, every effort
was made to induce the Southern Conferences on
the Northern border to adhere to the Methodist
Episcopal Church (North). It was affirmed that
M. E. Church, South. 497

the Kentucky, Missouri, and Holston Conferences
would each, by a large majority, decline any connec-
tion with the Methodist Episcopal Church, South.

The Kentucky Conference met in Frankfort,
Ky., September 10, 1845. Bishops Soule and
Andrew were both present. On the first day of
the session the following preamble and resolutions
were presented and adopted:

“Whereas, the long-continued agitation and
excitement on the subject of slavery and abolition
in the Methodist Episcopal Church, and especially
such agitation and excitement in the last General
Conference, in connection with the civil and domes-
tic relations of Bishop Andrew, as the owner of
slave property, by inheritance and marriage, as-
sumed such form in the action had in the case of
Bishop Andrew, as to compel the Southern and
South-western delegates in that body to believe,
and formally and solemnly to declare, that a state
of things must result therefrom which would ren-
der impracticable the successful prosecution of the
objects and purposes of the Christian ministry and
Church- organization, in the Annual Conferences
within the limits of the slaveholding States; upon
the basis of which declaration the General Con-
ference adopted a Provisional Plan of Separation,
in view of which said Conferences might, if they
found it necessary, form themselves into a sepa-
rate General Conference jurisdiction; and whereas,
498 Organization of the

said Conferences, acting first in their separate Con-
ference capacity, as distinct ecclesiastical bodies,
and then collectively, by their duly appointed
delegates and representatives, in General Conven-
tion assembled, have found and declared such
separation necessary, and have farther declared a
final dissolution, in fact and form, of the jurisdic-
tional connection ‘hitherto existing between them
and the General Conference of the Methodist
Episcopal Church as heretofore constituted; and
have organized the Methodist Episcopal Church,
South, upon the unaltered basis of the doctrines
and discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church
in the United States before its separation, as au-
thorized by the General Conference; and whereas,
said Plan of Separation, as adopted by the Gen-
eral Conference, and carried out by the late Con-
vention of Southern delegates in the city of
Louisville, Ky., and also recognized by the entire
Episcopacy as authoritative and of binding obli-
gation in the whole range of their administra-
tion, provides that Conferences bordering on the
‘line of division between the two Connections—
North and South—shall determine by vote of a
majority of their members respectively, to which
jurisdiction they will adhere; therefore, in view
of all the premises, as one of the border Confer-
ences, and subject to the above-named rule,
“Resolved, by the Kentucky Annual Conference
M. E. Church, South. 499

of the Methodist Episcopal Church, That in con-
forming to the General Conference Plan of Sepa-
ration, it is necessary that this Conference decide
by a vote of a majority of its members to which
Connection of the Methodist Episcopal Church it
will adhere, and that we now proceed to make
such decision.

“Resolved, That any member or members of this
Conference, declining to adhere to that Connection
to which the majority shall by regular, official vote
decide to adhere, shall be regarded as entitled,
agreeably to the Plan of Separation, to hold their
relation to the other ecclesiastical connection—
North or South—as the case may be, without
blame or prejudice of any kind, unless there be
grave objections to the moral character of such
member or members, before the date of such
formal adherence.

“Resolved, That agreeably to the provisions of
the General Conference Plan of Separation, and
the decisions of the Episcopacy with regard to it,
any person or persons, from and after the act of
non-concurrence with the majority, as above, can-
not be entitled to hold membership, or claim any
of the rights or privileges of membership in this
Conference.

“Resolved, That as a Conference, claiming all
the rights, powers, and privileges of an Annual
Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, we
500 Organization of the

adhere to the Methodist Episcopal Church, South,
and that all our proceedings, records, and official
acts hereafter, be in the name and style of the
Kentucky Annual Conference of the Methodist
Episcopal Church, South.

“FRANKFORT, Ky., September 10, 1845.”

The vote on the fourth resolution was taken by
ayes and noes, and stood, ayes 77, noes 6, and
four of the six voting in the negative afterward
adhered personally to the M. E. Church, South.
The action of the Conference, almost unanimous,
contributed much in promoting harmony in the
Churches throughout Kentucky. With a line of
border of several hundred miles, there was but a
single society that adhered North, while in nearly
all the others scarcely a voice of dissent was heard.

In Missouri, Northern Methodists were equally
baffled in their expectations. The resolutions
adopted by the Kentucky Conference were, in
substance, introduced and adopted by the Mis-
souri, only fourteen voting in the negative.

The Holston Conference, at its annual meeting,
adopted the following preamble and resolutions,
offered by Samuel Patton, with only one vote in
the negative; the person voting afterward adhered
to the M. E. Church, South, and took work in the
Conference :

“Whereas, the long-continued agitation on the
subject of slavery and abolition in the Methodist
M. E. Church, South. 501

Episcopal Church did, at the General Conference
of said Church, held in the city of New York, in
May, 1844, result in the adoption of certain meas-
ures by that body which seriously threatened a
disruption of the Church; and to avert this calam-
ity, said General Conference did devise and adopt
a plan contemplating the peaceful separation of the
South from the North; and constituting the Con-
ferences in the slaveholding States the sole judges
of the necessity for such separation ; and, whereas,
the Conferences in the slaveholding States, in the
exercise of the right accorded to them by the
General Conference, did, by their representatives
in Convention at Louisville, Ky., in May last, de-
cide that separation was necessary, and proceeded
to organize themselves into a separate and distinct
ecclesiastical connection, under the style and title
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, basing
their claim to a legitimate relation to the Method-
ist Episcopal Church in the United States upon
their unwavering adherence to the Plan of Sep-
aration adopted by the General Conference of
said Church in 1844, and their devotion to the
doctrines, discipline, and usages of the Church as
they received them from their fathers.

“And as the Plan of Separation provides that
the Conferences bordering on the geographical line
of separation shall decide their relation by the
votes of the majority—as also that ministers of
502 Organization of the

every grade shall make their election North or
South without censure—therefore,

“1. Resolved, That we now proceed to deter--
mine the question of our ecclesiastical relation by
the vote of the Conference.

“2. That we, the members of the Holston Annual
Conference, claiming all the rights, powers, and
privileges of an Annual Conference of the Meth-
odist Episcopal Church in the United States, do
hereby make our election with, and adhere to, the
Methodist Episcopal Church, South.

“3. That while we thus declare our adherence
to the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, we re-
pudiate the idea of secession in any schismatic or
offensive sense of the phrase, as we neither give
up nor surrender any thing which we have re-
ceived as constituting any part of Methodism, and
adhere to the Southern ecclesiastical organization,
in strict accordance with the provisions of the
Plan of Separation, adopted by the General Con-
ference of the Methodist Episcopal Church at its
session in New York in May, 1844.

“4, That we are satisfied with our Book of
Discipline as it is on the subject of slavery, and
every other vital feature of Methodism, as re-
corded in that Book; and that we will not toler-
ate any changes whatever, except such verbal or
unimportant alterations as may, in the judgment
of the General Conference, facilitate the work in
M. E. Church, South. 503

which we are engaged, and promote uniformity and
. harmony in our administration.

“5. That the journals of our present session,
as well as all our official business, be henceforth
conformed in style and title to our ecclesiastical
relations.

“6. That it is our desire to cultivate and main-
tain fraternal relations with our brethren of the
North. And we do most sincerely deprecate the
continuance of paper warfare, either by editors or
correspondents, in our official Church-papers, and
devoutly pray for the speedy return of peace and
harmony in the Church, both North and South.

“7, That the Holston Annual Conference most
heartily commend the course of our beloved Bish-
ops, Soule and Andrew, during the recent agita-
tions which have resulted in the territorial and ju-
risdictional separation of the Methodist Episcopal
Church, and that we tender them our thanks for
their steady adherence to principle and the best
interests of the slave population.

“Davip ADAMS.”

Similar action was taken by all the border Con-
ferences in the slaveholding States.

At the several Annual Conferences delegates
were elected, as provided for by the Convention,
to the first General Conference of the Methodist
Episcopal Church, South, to meet on the first day
of May, 1846, in Petersburg, Virginia.
504 Organization of the

CHAPTER VII.-—

The first General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal
Church, South—Bishops Soule and Andrew present—
Bishop Soule’s Communication—Referred to a Commit-
tee—Report of Committee—Dr. Pierce appointed Fra-
ternal Messenger to the General Conference of the Meth-
odist Episcopal Church—Dr. Dixon from the British
Conference, Dr. Richey, and Revs. J. Ryerson and A.
Green from the Canada Conference—Fraternal intercourse
with the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, declined—
Dr. Pierce’s popularity in Pittsburgh—His Report to the
General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church,
South, in 1850—The Property Question—The Lawsuits—
Decisions in favor of the Methodist Episcopal Church,
South—Position, duty, and prospects of the Methodist
Episcopal Church, South.

Tue first General Conference of the Methodist
Episcopal Church, South, met in Petersburg, Vir-
ginia, on the first day of May, 1846.

Bishop Andrew not having arrived, and Bishop
Soule not having, as yet, formally adhered to the
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, the delegates
were called to order at nine o'clock a.m., by Dr.
William Winans, of Mississippi Conference. The
M. £. Church, South. 505

Rev. John Early, of Virginia Conference, was
elected President pro tem; whereupon he took the
chair, and General Conference was opened—relig-
ious service conducted by Dr. Winans.

The Secretary of the Louisville Convention
being absent, the President called on the Assistant
Secretary to receive and read the certificates of
election, as presented by the delegates.

The General Conference was composed of the
following delegates, viz. :

Kentucky Conference—Henry B. Bascom, Hub-
bard H. Kavanaugh, Benjamin T. Crouch, Jona-
than Stamper, George W. Brush, Edward Steven-
son, Thomas N. Ralston, Charles B. Parsons, John
C. Harrison, Napoleon B. Lewis.

Holston Samuel Patton, David Fleming, Tim-
othy Sullins, Thomas K. Catlett, Elbert F. Se-
vier.

Missouri.— William Patton, Andrew. Monroe,
Thomas Wallace, William W. Redman, John H.
Linn, Joseph Boyle.

Tennessee.—John B. McFerrin, Robert Paine,
Fountain. E. Pitts, Alexander L. P. Green,
John W. Hanner, Edmund W. Sehon, Samuel
S. Moody, Frederick G. Ferguson, Ambrose F.
Driskill.

Virginia. — William A. Smith, John Early,
Thomas Crowder, Abraham Penn, Leroy M. Lee,

Henry B. Cowles, Anthony Dibrell.
22
506 Organization of the

North Carolina.— Hezekiah G. Leigh, James
Jamieson, Samuel S8. Bryant, Peter Doub.

Indian Mission—Wesley Browning, Jerome C.
Berryman.

Memphis.—Moses Brock, George W. D. Harris,
William McMahon, William M. McFerrin, Arthur °
Davis, John T. Baskerville.

South Carolina.—William Capers, Charles Betts,
Nicholas Talley, William M. Wightman, Hugh A.
C. Walker, Samuel W. Capers.

Mississippi.— William Winans, Benjamin M.
Drake, John Lane, Lewel Campbell, Green M.
Rogers, Andrew T. M. Fly, John G. Jones.

Kast Texas.—Francis Wilson.

Texas. — Robert Alexander, Chauncey Rich-
ardson.

Florida.— Alexander Martin, R. H. Luckey.

Alabama.—Thomas H. Capers, Elisha Callaway,
Eugene V. Levert, Jesse Boring, Jefferson Hamil-
ton, Greenbury Garrett, Thomas O. Summers.

Georgia.—Lovick Pierce, William J. Parks, John
W. Glenn, Samuel Anthony, James E. Evans,
George F. Pierce, Isaac Boring, Augustus B.
Longstreet.

Arkansas. —John F. Truslow, William P. Rat-
cliffe, Andrew Hunter.

Thomas N. Ralston, of the Kentucky Conference,
was elected Secretary, and Thomas O. Summers,
of the Alabama Conference, Assistant Secretary.
| M. E. Church, South. 507

On the 2d of May, Bishop Andrew arrived and
took the chair.

On the same day Bishop Soule presented the
following communication to the Conference :

PetTersBurG, May 2, 1846.

Rey. anp Dear Breruren:—I consider your
body, as now organized, as the consummation of the
organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church,
South, in conformity to the “ Plan of Separation,”
adopted by the General Conference of the M. EH.
Church in 1844. It is therefore in strict agree-
ment with the provisions of that body, that you
are vested with full power to transact all business
appropriate to a Methodist General Conference.

I view this organization as having been com-
menced in the “Declaration” of the delegates of
the Conferences in the slaveholding States, made
at New York in 1844; and as having advanced in
its several stages in the “ Protest”—“the Plan
of Separation ”—the appointment of delegates to
the Louisville Convention—in the action of that
body—in the subsequent action of the Annual
Conferences, approving the acts of their delegates
at the Convention, and in the appointment of dele-
gates to this General Conference.

The organization of the M. E. Church, South,
being thus completed in the organization of the
General Conference with a constitutional Presi-
508 Organization of the

dent, the time has arrived when it is proper for
me to announce my position. Sustaining no rela-
tion to one Annual Conference which I did not
sustain to every other, and considering the Gen-
eral Conference as the proper judicatory to which
my communication should be made, I have de-
clined making this announcement until the present
time. And now, acting with strict regard to the
Plan of Separation, and under a solemn conviction
of duty, I formally declare my adherence to the
Methodist Episcopal Church, South. And if the
Conference receive me in my present relation to
the Church, I am ready to serve them according
to the best of my ability. In conclusion, I in-
dulge the joyful assurance that although separated
from our Northern brethren by a distinct Confer-
ence jurisdiction, we shall never cease to treat
them as “brethren beloved,” and cultivate those
principles and affections which constitute the es-
sential unity of the Church of Christ.
(Signed) JosHua SouLe.

So soon as the above communication from Bishop
Soule was read, Drs. Bascom and Winans were
appointed a committee to respond to it, and on the
7th of May submitted the following, which was
unanimously adopted : .

PrrerspureG, VA., May 6, 1846.
Whereas, the Rev. Joshua Soule, D.D., senior
M. E. Church, South. + 509

Bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church, hag?
addressed a communication to the General Confer-
ence of the M. E. Church, South, now in session
in Petersburg, Va., bearing date the 2d inst., in
which he formally declares his adherence to the M.
E. Church, South, in accordance with the right se-
cured to him by the Plan of Separation, adopted
by the General Conference of the M. E. Church
at its last session in 1844; therefore,

Resolved, (by the delegates of the several An-
‘ nual Conferences of the M. E. Church, South, in
General Conference assembled,) That, fully agree-
ing with Bishop Soule, as it regards his right of
action in the premises, by authority of the General
Conference of 1844, we cheerfully and unani-
mously recognize him as Bishop of the M. EH.
Church, South, with all the constitutional rights
and privileges pertaining to his office as Bishop
of the M. E. Church. H. B. Bascom,

Wm. Winans.

It does not belong to our design to trace the
proceedings of the General Conference of 1846.
The consideration of a few questions that came
before that body, lies properly within the range of
our work.

The Methodist Episcopal Church was now di-
vided into two separate and distinct ecclesiastical
jurisdictions, known as the Methodist Episcopal
510 : Organization of the

Church (North), and the Methodist Episcopal
Church, South. Whether the North or the South
was responsible for the legislation which led to
this result, our readers must determine for them-
selves. Notwithstanding the division between the
two Methodisms, there were many things in com-
mon. For seventy years the Methodist Episcopal
Church had dispensed its blessings all over our land.
From a small beginning it had grown and spread
until its genial rays penetrated every portion of the
country. The history of all sections was one his-
tory. The Churches, at whose altars thousands had
bowed and worshiped God, were the common prop-
erty of Methodism. We preached the same blessed
gospel, and taught the same doctrines and precepts.
The names of Wesley, of Coke, of Asbury, and Mc-
Kendree, were alike dear to every Methodist heart.

Since the action of the General Conference in
the case of Bishop Andrew, two years had elapsed,
and on both sides the line of division an oppor-
tunity had been afforded for calm deliberation. The
ministers and members of the Methodist Episcopal
Church, South, had proclaimed to the world that
their object in a separate organization was the
promotion of Christianity; and launching their bark
upon the sea, they unfurled the white flag of peace.

Among the resolutions adopted by the Conven-
tion at the time of the organization of the M. E.
Church, South, it was
M. E. Church, South. 511

‘Resolved, That while we cannot abandon or com-
promise the principles of action upon which we
proceed to a separate organization in the South,
nevertheless, cherishing a sincere desire to main-
tain Christian union and fraternal intercourse with
the Church, North, we shall always be ready
kindly and respectfully to entertain and duly and
carefully consider any proposition or plan having
for its object the union of the two great bodies in
the North and South, whether such proposed union
be jurisdictional or connectional.”

Desirous that all strife should cease, and that
the two branches of American Methodism should
live in harmony, and thus accomplish more readily
their mission of good, the General Conference of
the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, in 1846,
among the last acts of that body,

“Resolved, by a rising and unanimous vote, That
Dr. Lovick Pierce be, and is hereby, delegated to
visit the General Conference of the M. E. Church,
to be held in Pittsburgh, May 1, 1848, to tender
to that body the Christian regards and fraternal
salutations of the General Conference of the Meth-
odist Episcopal Church, South. In case of the in-
ability of Dr. Pierce to attend the session of the
aforesaid Conference, the Bishops are respectfully
requested to appoint a substitute.”

The Bishops were “requested to prepare an
Address on behalf of the Conference, to be pre-
512 Organization of the

sented by Dr. Pierce to the General Conference
of the M. HE. Church (North) at his visit to that
body in May, 1848.”

Dr. Pierce was eminently qualified to perform
the duties with which he was intrusted. He was
no ordinary man, but took rank with the most dis-
tinguished preachers of the age. Since 1802 he
had been a member of the Methodist Church, and
had entered the South Carolina Conference as an
itinerant preacher in 1804. He was a member of
the General Conference of 1812, and had fre-
quently served the Church since then in its high-
est councils. In the State of Georgia, where he
resided, no man exerted a more potent influence;
and in the Georgia Conference, of which he was a
member, no preacher was more beloved. He not
only brought into the ministry talents of the first
order, but with a commanding and thrilling elo-
quence he enforced the sublime truths of Chris-
tianity. To these he added a sound judgment, a
sweet and gentle spirit, and a heart sanctified by
grace. Such was the man selected by the first
General Conference of the M. E. Church, South,
to bear to the General Conference of the M. E.
Church (North) its “Christian regards and fra-
ternal salutations.” *

 

* Dr. Pierce is still living. He is this day (March 24,
1871,) eighty-six years of age. His mental powers are un-
impaired, and he is able to preach three times every Sunday.
M. E. Church, South. 513

That the mission of Dr. Pierce would meet with
favor in the body to which he was sent as a fra-
ternal messenger, no member of the General Con-
ference appointing him doubted foramoment. The
majority in the General Conference of 1844, recog-
nizing the necessities of the Church in the South,
had met the emergency in a spirit of enlarged lib-
erality, and had provided for an amicable division
of the Church. The Northern press, it is true,
had indulged in words of bitterness toward the
South, but time had been given for reflection, and
the cessation of hostilities was due to a common
Methodism and a common Christianity.

It was eminently proper, too, that any proposi-
tion looking to the existence between the two
Churches of fraternal relations, should be inaugu-
rated by the Methodist Episcopal Church, South.
That Church had established a separate ecclesi-
astical organization, and its General Conference
was the first to convene.

Two years would elapse before the meeting of
the General Conference of the Methodist Epis-
copal Church (North), and if any “roots of bit-
terness” remained, they would have time to die
out.

On the first day of May, 1848, the General
Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church
(North) assembled in the city of Pittsburgh. We

miss from the body many of the men who were
22*
514 Organization of the

leaders in 1844; but John A. Collins, John P.
Durbin, Jesse T. Peck, James B. Finley, and
Charles Elliott, are present.

Among the distinguished ministers from abroad,
the name of the Rev. Dr. Dixon deserves to be
mentioned. He was a member of the Wesleyan
Conference in Great Britain, and appointed by
that body as their representative to bear to the
General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal
Church (North) their fraternal salutations. Dr.
Dixon was introduced to the Conference, and “by
general consent the rules of the Conference were
suspended, and the credentials of Dr. Dixon,
representative from England, were presented and
read.” :

Dr. Dixon submitted the following Address of
the British Conference:

To the Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church in- the
United States of North America, and to the Ministers in
Conference assembled.

Very Dear Breturen:—At our last Annual Con-
ference held in Liverpool, it was resolved, That as
it is desirable to maintain that fraternal and Chris-
tian affection which has long subsisted between
your Church and the British Methodists, a repre-
sentative should be appointed from among us to
attend your next General Conference.

The Rev. James Dixon, D.D., was affectionately
M. E. Church, South. 515

requested to undertake this important mission, and
the Rev. Joseph Stinson was desired to accompany
him. We presume that Dr. Dixon, the bearer of
this letter, is not altogether unknown to you.
Among us he has lived for many years in the
highest esteem and veneration. His Christian
simplicity, the meekness of his spirit, his manly
and effective eloquence in preaching the gospel, as
well as the ability and fidelity with which he has
maintained our ecclesiastical polity, have pointed
him out as well fitted to undertake this mission.
The British Conference has deputed him to visit
you with the utmost confidence in his integrity
and ability. His companion, the Rev. Joseph
Stinson, also visits you in compliance with our
earnest desire, and with our entire confidence and
growing esteem.

A lengthened epistle is rendered unnecessary
by the presence among you of our representatives.
They will convey to you our fraternal salutations.
We respectfully refer you to them for any such
information respecting our affairs as it may be
agreeable to them to communicate.

Our earnest prayer is that the Holy Spirit may
pour upon your approaching assembly his choicest
influences, and conduct your deliberations to such
results as shall promote the glory of Christ and
the maintenance and spread of scriptural holiness
through your extended country.
516 Organization of the

We are, dear brethren, in behalf of the British
Conference, SamvueEL Jackson, President.
Rosert Newton, Secretary.

After a brief address from Dr. Dixon, on mo-
tion of Jesse T. Peck, it was

“Resolved, by the delegates of the Annual Con-
ferences of the Methodist Episcopal Church in
the United States of America, in General Confer-
ence assembled, Ist. That the cordial thanks of
this body be presented to the Rev. Dr. Dixon, and
through him to the Conference he represents, for
the honor conferred on us in his presence and
address, and that he be affectionately invited to
take such part in our deliberations as may be
agreeable to him. 2d. That the communication
from the British Conference, presented by him, be
referred to a select committee of three, with in-
structions to report the reply of the Conference.”

The committee appointed “to respond to the
communication from the Wesleyan Conference,
England,” consisted of J. P. Durbin, C. Elliott,
and C. Pitman. On the 29th of May the com-
mittee presented the following report:

Tothe British Conference of the Wesleyan Methodist Church.

Faruers AND Bretaren:—Nothing gives us
more pleasure than to receive your fraternal salu-
tations at a session of our General Conference;
M. E. Church, South. 517

and this pleasure is heightened when we receive
them at the hands and in the words of one of
your own body. It affords us much happiness to
bear testimony to the excellent spirit and amiable
deportment of your representative, the Rev. Dr.
Dixon; and we should have been pleased to re-
ceive with him the Rev. Joseph Stinson, whom
you requested to accompany him. We avail our-
selves of your kind and confiding reference to your
representative, and consider his address to us as
the voice of our British brethren.

Through him you express the continuance of
your cordial affection toward us, and your earnest
desire for our increased prosperity. We receive
this expression as in some degree a manifestation
of paternal feeling on your part, which in our
judgment has somewhat of a divine blessing
connected with it, And, in return, we declare the
unabated admiration and love which we bear your
body, and our desire to prove ourselves worthy
of our sacred spiritual relations with you. We
have good hope that we shall be able to do so, as
well from our own knowledge of the true Wes-
leyan character of our doctrines, services, and
Discipline, as from the frank and clear declaration
of your representative, that the Methodist Epis-
copal Church appeared to him to exhibit essen-
tially pure Wesleyan Methodism.

Your representative was pleased to allude to the
518 Organization of the

unhappy separation of our beloved Church, grow-
ing out of the connection of one of our Superin-
tendents with slavery, prior to the General Con-
ference of 1844; and expressed his deep regret
that any such cause of separation should have
arisen.

The true cause of the difficulty in our beloved
Zion was our refusal to admit, under any circum-
stances, a connection of our Episcopacy with
slavery. True, your honored representative took
occasion to say farther (declaring at the same
time that he expressed the sentiments of the whole
body of Methodists in England, both ministers
and people), that your sympathies were entirely
on the side of liberty.

On our part we would say that, while our sym-
pathies lie in the same direction, and it is our pur-
pose still, as heretofore, to bear steadily our testi-
mony against the great evil of slavery, and, within
our legitimate sphere as a Church, to discounte-
nance it and seek its removal, we, nevertheless,
have long been satisfied that our brethren in other
countries, occupying a distant stand-point, and,
therefore, not clearly comprehending the compli-
cated conditions of this extremely difficult subject,
have not been able to do full justice to our policy
and conduct as a Church in regard to this matter,
they may have thought that we should have acted
with more directness and decision. Feeling our-
M. FE. Church, South. 519

selves within the complications of this great evil,
whose effects are felt throughout the sacred, social,
and political relations of this country, it becomes
us to act prudently and in the fear of God, and
strive to consider well, and settle all things on the
surest and best foundations for the promotion of
his glory, and the peace and prosperity of the
Church.
Your representative took occasion to express to
us the high satisfaction he felt in visiting our
country, and conversing with the most distin-
guished and intelligent of its citizens, both in the
government and in private life. And we acknowl-
edge a sense of unfeigned gratification on our part,
while we listened to his frank and candid avowal
of his astonishment at the mellowing influences
of our institutions, in inspiring our great men with
striking condescension and courtesy, and in ele-
vating the lowly. And we were edified with the
direct and fervent prayers which he offered up for
our government and nation in his public adminis-
trations; while, at the same time, he as frankly
and fervently mingled therewith his prayers for
your beloved queen, your government, and nation,
which found a warm response from our hearts.
We will take this occasion to say, we have great
pleasure in observing that you have distinctly as-
sumed all the titles, forms, and functions of a true
Church of Christ, which, indeed, we have regarded
520 Organization of the

you always to have been. The present condition
of Protestantism in Europe, and particularly in
England, renders this position on your part very
important to the interests of Christ’s Church.

Your systematic and efficient organization, not
only for a regular and abundant supply of the
word of life to the people, but also for your for-
eign missionary work, commands our admiration
and moves us to action. We behold you planting
the standard of the cross in the islands of every
ocean, and on the coasts and plains of every conti-
nent, provoking us thereby to enter more largely
into the same great work.

It gives us pleasure to assure you that in this
respect we are steadily advancing. Though our
movements are not so striking as yours, yet they
are vast and important. Our own country
stretches westward over the Rocky Mountains to
the Pacific Ocean, a distance of thousands of miles,
through which is dispersed a sparse population
from all the nations of Europe, together with the
numerous and populous tribes of the native In-
dians of its unbroken forests.

These elements of vast empires must be taught
the principles, imbued with the spirit, and pro-
vided with the institutions, of our holy Christian-
ity. This immense domain is our domestic field
of missionary operations, and it is a cause of de-
vout thankfulness to God that we see it yearly
M. E. Church, South. 521

blossoming as the rose. As a specimen, we men-
tion our German missions. Hundreds of thou-
sands of native Germans flock to our land, bringing
with them the cold and heartless Rationalism, or
ignorant and fanatical Roman Catholicism, of Ger-
many. In their new and strange circumstances
they become easily accessible to us, and within
ten years past, five thousand have been converted
to God, of whom about two thousand were Ro-
man Catholics. These have been formed into
regular societies, which have been reduced to reg-
ular circuits, stations, and Districts, and well ap-
pointed by German preachers, amounting in all to
eighty-five. The work is still rapidly advancing,
and we are taking measures to insure its increase
and purity. Arrangements are being made to
compile and publish an Evangelical Commentary
on the New Testament, also Sunday-school books
for our German Sunday-schools, and to translate
additional works from our General Catalogue into
German. Already this great light, kindled among
the natives of Germany now residing in this coun-
try, is beginning to illumine their fatherland, by
means of letters, books, and visitors from the
members of this new evangelical German Church.
God is sending Germany to us to be evangelized;
and indeed, in some degree, all the nations of Eu-
rope; and we doubt not but the reaction of this
great domestic missionary work among us will be
522 Organization of the

great and salutary on the Old World. But we
are not content within this domestic field—we are
extending our missionary operations to Oregon,
California, portions of Mexico, and to China. And,
aided by the bright example of your brilliant mis-
sionary resources and operations, we hope shortly
to fill up the measure of the missionary work
which God may be pleased to assign us.

And while we are thus endeavoring to extend
the kingdom of God wider in the world, we are
not unmindful of the population he hath given us
at home. And believing that education is one
great means of advancing and fortifying his king-
dom among us, we have, within the last twenty
years, given much attention to this matter. While
we have not thought it best to have theological
seminaries proper, and have judged that a proper
course of study which our young men are required
to accomplish in four years, while they are actively
engaged in preaching the gospel and taking care
of souls, will make them able ministers of the
New Testament, we have been careful to provide
universities, colleges, and academies for the edu-
cation of our own people, as well as the public at
large. And in this department of our work we
may congratulate ourselves as having been suc-
cessful. We have now seven colleges fully or-
ganized, and affording academic education to
thousands of our younger sons, and also of our
M. EF. Church, South. 523

daughters, who are thus prepared to diffuse the
essence and odor of piety in the more private and
sacred walks of life.

We take pleasure in naming, as additional means
of education, the vast capital and appliances of
our General Book Concern, and the numerous ex-
cellent works which issue from it. In the Gen-
eral Catalogue there are two hundred and seventy-
five distinct works, some of them extending to six
heavy volumes. In the list are commentaries,
dictionaries, Church-histories, and many excellent
ecclesiastical and theological works. We should
be wanting in honor did we not acknowledge that
many of them have been derived from your Con-
nection. Our Sunday-school publications also
are very numerous; the Youth’s Library already
amounts to four hundred and eleven volumes, and
our Tract publications to three hundred and sixty.
It would be difficult to state the many thousands
of these works that are annually distributed
throughout our vast country.

Our periodical literature is also immense. The
weekly issue from our various presses in newspa-
per form amount to not less than forty-five thou-
sand copies. We have one monthly magazine,
entitled “The Ladies’ Repository,” with about
seven thousand subscribers. It is conducted with
taste and ability, and the mechanical execution
and embellishments are very creditable.
524 Organization of the

Our Quarterly Review is conducted with ability,
and. affords a medium of presenting to our ministers
and principal friends the graver topics in theology,
and in general science and literature. Our children
in our thousands of Sunday-schools are supplied,
semi-monthly, with the Sunday-school Advocate,
in quarto form. It has now eighty thousand sub-
scribers, and is rapidly advancing to one hundred
thousand. We have also a monthly Missionary
Advocate, with a subscription-list of at least
twenty thousand, which distributes throughout
our Church general missionary intelligence from
various parts of the world. We trust that these
vast issues of books and periodicals from our va-
rious presses and agencies are deeply imbued
with the doctrines and spirit of genuine Chris-
tianity.

We did not think it necessary in the earlier
part of this address to allude to the only little
matter of uneasiness between us; that is, the lib-
erty which some of our ministers (we say some,
although we are advised of but one case) have
taken to visit England, and make appointments for
preaching and public services without the regular
approbation or concurrence of the proper authori-
ties among you. It gives us pleasure to testify
our disapprobation of this course, and to say it
has never been done with our sanction; and that
we will see that hereafter the proper restraint is
M. E. Church, South. 525

put upon all our traveling ministers in this matter.
As it respects local preachers, we have no direct
authority in the premises; but we wish distinctly
to declare our disapprobation of any conduct on
their part, as preachers in your country, which
has not your special sanction, and is not under
your direction.

We have been gratified to observe that the
cause of temperance, on the principle of total ab-
stinence from intoxicating liquors, is attracting
attention in England; and we respectfully ask
your attention to it, and your kind consideration
of it, as intimately connected with the best inter-
ests of society in general, and greatly conducive
to the success of the gospel. Such is our expe-
rience in America, particularly when the Church
enters heartily into the cause.

In conclusion, it gives us great pleasure to renew
to you the expression of our fraternal affection; and
to say that it is now in our minds, at some suita-
ble time hereafter, to reciprocate the favor you
have done us by sending us your excellent repre-
sentative to refresh our spirits by his holy minis-
try, and to edify us by your Christian fellowship
which we enjoy through him.

Wishing you all prosperity and peace as a
Church, through the abounding grace of God in
our Lord Jesus Christ, we are, dear fathers and
brethren, yours in the bonds of the gospel.
526 Organization of the

It is gratifying to know that every courtesy
due the distinguished representative of the British
Conference was shown to him during his stay in
Pittsburgh. On the 8th of May he was requested,
by a resolution of the General Conference, to
preach a sermon to the Conference on Wednesday,
the 10th of May, at half-past 10 o’clock a.m.; and
on Thursday, the 11th, the order of the day was

’ suspended, that the following resolution might be
offered :

“Resolved, That the cordial thanks of this Gen-
eral Conference be presented to the Rev. Dr.
Dixon for his excellent and evangelical sermon,
and that we respectfully and earnestly request
Rev. Dr. Dixon to furnish the substance of the
sermon he delivered before the General Conference
yesterday for publication, and that he expand his
remarks in any part of it as he may judge proper,
and write out his last proposition, of which he
only presented us with the outline.”

“The Methodists in Upper Canada were for-
merly under the jurisdiction of the Methodist
Episcopal Church in the United States, but, from
political considerations chiefly, it was deemed ad-
visable that they should be transferred to the ju-
risdiction of the British Conference,” which was
done in 1830.

The Rev. Dr. Richey and Rev. Messrs. Ryer-
son and Green, members of the Wesleyan Meth-
M. E. Church, South. 527

odist Conference in Canada, were delegated to
bear the fraternal greetings of that body to the
Methodist Episcopal Church (North). On the
9th of May they presented the following address:

To the Bishops and Members of the General Conference of
the Methodist Episcopal Church.

REvEREND Fatnrrs AND Breturen:—With un-
diminished feelings of regard for our brethren of
the Methodist Episcopal Church in general, and
particularly for the Bishops and ministers who
labor in word and doctrine within its pale, we
avail ourselves of the occasion of the assembling
of the General Conference to renew the testimony
of our esteem and affection.

We are aware that very important topics were
discussed at your last General Conference, and
since that period some of these subjects have en-
grossed the attention and excited the feelings of
ministers and people throughout your extensive
country. In the serious difficulties by which you
have been surrounded, and the troubles in which
you have been involved, we have felt the deepest
concern, and cherished the liveliest sympathy. But
“God is the hope of Israel, the Saviour thereof
in time of trouble.” That he may overrule all
things for his own glory, and the ultimate benefit
and salvation of your venerated and beloved
Church, is our devout and earnest prayer.
528 Organization of the

Your success in the midst of these trials and
conflicts awakens our gratitude and joy. We
notice with unmixed pleasure your extensive ope-
rations in the diffusion of education, in the circu-
lation of useful and religious books and tracts, in
the establishment and support of Sunday-schools,
and in the preaching of the gospel as far as your
population extends. We rejoice to learn that the
great Head of the Church has poured out his
Holy Spirit on various parts of your great field
of labor, and that thousands by your instrumen-
tality have been brought to the knowledge of
Christ. May these tokens of Divine presence and
favor be perpetuated among you to the latest gen-
eration!

The Wesleyan Church in Canada, as in the
United States, has had its times of sorrow and
seasons of joy. Since the year 1840, we have
had to lament over serious difficulties existing
between ourselves and the English Conference.
Happily, upon a review of the whole, both parties
were led to the conclusion that misapprehension
had existed on several points, and that events
which gave rise to differences in former years no
longer existed. To the English Conference of
1846 we sent our esteemed brethren, the Rev.
Messrs. Ryerson and Green, as our representa-
tives, that, if practicable, peace and unity might
be restored and promoted between the two legiti-
M. E. Church, South. 529

mate Wesleyan bodies in Western Canada. Under
the peculiar guidance of Divine Providence, their
mission was signally successful. Our English
brethren have promptly joined us in mutual agree-
ment to bury in oblivion the record of the painful
past, to reiinite our separated bodies on terms
generous and just, and to go forward as a united
host in the defense and maintenance of the glo-
rious gospel of the ever-blessed God. We are
certain your earnest prayers will spontaneously
blend with our own, that this union may be per-
petual.

We are still endeavoring to assist in promoting
the great object of useful and religious education
in this country. Our college has its embarrass-
ments, but we are gradually surmounting them.
Our Book Room is in a state of efficiency. The
mission work among us is increasing, and the
funds are increasing with the work. Our other
connectional funds are also on the advance, through
the liberality of our people. Our united bodies
make the statistics of the Connection in Western
Canada as follows: Circuits and missions, 98;
preachers, 189; members, 24,882.

Considering the hostilities we have had to com-
bat in past years, we are truly thankful that our
situation at present is so favorable, and shall enter
upon the duties of another year high in hope and

full of expectation that the blessing of the great
23
530 Organization of the

Head of the Church will be upon us and our be-
loved people, prospering us more and more in our
work of faith and labor of love.

We have appointed our esteemed brethren, the
Rev. Messrs. M. Richey, A.M., J. Ryerson, and.
Anson Green, as our representatives to your Gen-
eral Conference, to whom we refer you for any
additional information respecting us which you
may desire. ;

Signed by order and on behalf of the Confer-
ence of the Wesleyan Methodist Church in Can-
ada, this 16th day of June, in the year of our
Lord one thousand eight hundred and _forty-
seven. R. Atpver, President.

James Muserove, Secretary.

The same committee appointed to respond to
the Address from the British Conference, was
intrusted with the duty of preparing a response
to the brethren in Canada, and on the 29th of May

they presented the following:

Dear Bretaren:—We have received your very
kind and agreeable address by the hands of your
worthy and esteemed representatives, the Rev.
Mr. Richey, D.D., Rev. J. Ryerson, and Rev. A.
Green, conveying to us your warm Christian salu-
tations. Your excellent representatives also took
occasion to add thereto farther expressions of your
M. E. Church, South. 531

fraternal regards, and of your personal esteem and
affection for us. We accept all these expressions
as tokens of your sincere love toward us, and of
your earnest desire to cultivate the same in future.
Allow us, dear brethren, to reciprocate from our
hearts the affection you bear us, and to render
thanks to God for the manifestations of his good-
ness to you, especially in restoring peace and con-
cord between you and our common parent Connec-
tion in England. We rejoice that you have found
in the British Connection, and we believe you will
continue to find in it, counsel and support; and
that, aided by its general and liberal fostering
care, your own industry and enterprises will be
abundantly fruitful.
In your address you allude to the interests of

education among you, and of the prosperity of
your Book Concern, which we regard as a spirit-
ual handmaid of secular learning. It is a matter
of real joy to us that you have a fair prospect of

permanently endowing a college for the liberal
education of your youth, and the youth of your
province, under the salutary influence of your

own Church. It is wise and good to take care of

the people born to you in the bosom of your com-

munity, and also to expand and advance the king-

dom of our Lord Jesus Christ in the midst of the

‘world by means of a healthy, sanctified education;

an education sound in its elements, and made vital
582 Organization of the

by the personal spirituality of the professors and
teachers who dispense it.

Your address also, as did your representatives,
alluded to the difficulties which for the last four
years have distressed our Zion; and although it ap-
peared to us that they did not fully comprehend
them, yet they kindly and properly expressed a
hope that these troubles would pass away. They
encouraged us by setting forth your own case as
one of long-continued and great difficulty, yet hap-
pily adjusted at last. We also abide in hope that
these difficulties may pass away from us, and our
Zion be as tranquil and prosperous as formerly.
But we do not now see the end, and have some
apprehensions, as it is believed that both the
Methodist Episcopal Church and the Methodist
_ Episcopal Church, South, claim that essential
principles of morals and policy are involved. But
in the Lord we put our trust.

It gives us great pleasure to have no occasion
for a lengthy epistle to you, on account of any
misunderstandings between us. We are of one
heart and one mind, and rejoice mutually in each
other’s prosperity. Let us continue to be of the
same mind, and to walk by the same rule. It is
now in our minds to send to you one of our own
body, at a suitable time, to express to you, face
to face, the love we bear you, and our fellowship
with you.
M. E. Church, South. 533

And now, dear brethren, we commend you to
God, and to the word of his grace; and we renew
to you the assurance of our fraternal affection in
Jesus Christ, our common Lord and Saviour.

These gentlemen were invited to address the Con-
ference. Indeed, the same courtesy that was
shown to Dr. Dixon was also shown to Dr. Richey,
and Messrs. Ryerson and Green.

It was not only due these distinguished stran-
gers, and the branches of Methodism they repre-
sented, but also the body to whom they were dele-
gated to bear the Christian love of their respective
Churches, to extend to them every courtesy and
attention. The responses to the British Confer-
ence and the Wesleyan Church in Canada are
replete with Christian sentiments that do honor
to the Methodism from whence they emanated.

On the same day in which Dr. Dixon pre-
sented the communication from the British Con-
ference, the Rev. Lovick Pierce, D.D., the ac-
credited representative of the Methodist Episco-
pal Church, South, presented the following com-
munication :

To the Bishops and Members of the Methodist Episcopal
Church, in General Conference assembled :

REVEREND AND DrEarR Breturen:—The General
Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church,
534 Organization of the

South, appointed me as their delegate to bear to
you the Christian salutations of the Church, South,
and to assure you that they sincerely desire that
the two great bodies of Wesleyan Methodists,
North and South, should maintain at all times a
warm, confiding, and brotherly, fraternal relation
to each other; and that through me they make
this offer to you, and very ardently desire that
you, on your part, will accept the offer in the same
spirit of brotherly love and kindness.

The acceptance or rejection of this proposition,
made by your Southern brethren, is entirely at
your disposal; and as my situation is one of pain-
ful solicitude until this question is decided, you
will allow me to beg your earliest attention to it.

And I would farther say, that your reply to this
communication will most gratify me if it is made
officially in the form of resolutions.

I have the honor to be, very respectfully, yours
in the unity of Wesleyan Methodism,

L. Prerce,
Delegate from the M. E. Church, South.

PirtspureH, May 3, 1848.

The communication of Dr. Pierce was referred
to the Committee on the State of the Church.
This committee was a large one, consisting of two
members from each delegation, and of which the
Rev. George Peck, of the New York Conference,
M. E. Church, South. 535

was the Chairman. On the 5th of May the com-
mittee presented the following report:

“¢That they have had under consideration the
letter from the Rev. Dr. Pierce, and that they
recommend to the General Conference the adop-
tion of the following preamble and resplution :

“«Whereas, a letter from Rev. L. Pierce, D.D.,
delegate of the Methodist Episcopal Church,
South, proposing fraternal relations between the
Methodist Episcopal Church and the Methodist
Episcopal Church, South, has been presented to
this Conference; and whereas, there are serious
questions and difficulties existing between the two
bodies ; therefore,

“« Resolved, That while we tender to the Rev. Dr.
Pierce all personal courtesies, and invite him to
attend our sessions, this General Conference does
not consider it proper, at present, to enter into
fraternal relations with the Methodist Episcopal
Church, South. Grorce Peck, Chairman,

“Moved to adopt the report.

“John A. Collins moved to amend, so that the
consideration of the report be delayed until the
questions of division of Church-property and of
the division line are settled.

“Voted to lay Brother Collins’s motion to amend
on the table.

“J. Holdich moved the following substitute to
the original resolution in the report:
536 Organization of the

“<1. Resolved, That this General Conference
invite Dr. Pierce, of the Methodist Episcopal
Church, South, to take a seat in the house and
address us on the subject of his mission.

“<2. Resolved, That as to fraternization, we are
not prepared at present to give any decision, but
shall leave that point open to farther consideration,
under whatever light or information we may re-
ceive bearing upon that question.’

“J. D. Bridge moved to lay Brother Holdich’s
substitute on the table. Carried.

“Dr. Tomlinson moved to amend the report by
adding the following, namely: ‘Provided, how-
ever, that nothing in this resolution shall be so
construed as to operate as a bar to any proposition
from Dr. Pierce, or any other representative of
the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, toward
the settlement of existing difficulties between that
body and this.’

“Dr. Durbin moved as a substitute to Dr. Tom-
linson’s amendment as follows, namely:

“<Resolved, That in so far as Dr. Pierce may
come with authority to adjust the difficulties be-
tween the two bodies, we will cordially confer
with him.’

“Dr. Durbin’s substitute failed, and the ques-
tion recurred on Dr. Tomlinson’s amendment.

“Brother Walker moved to lay the amendment
on the table. Not carried.
M. E. Church, South. 537

“Moved by Brother Holmes, that the vote be
taken by yeas and nays. Carried.

“Moved by Brother Collins to amend, by in-
serting instead of ‘to attend our sessions,’ to
take a seat within the bar. On motion, laid on
the table.

“The yeas and nays were called, and the vote
stood, yeas 147—no nays: three absent. So the
report, as amended, was unanimously adopted.”

On the 9th of May the following letter, replete
with manly and Christian sentiments, was ad-
dressed to the Conference by Dr. Pierce:

REVEREND AND Dear Bretruren:—I have re-
ceived two extracts from your Journal of the 4th
and 5thinstant. From these extracts I learn you
decline receiving me in my proper character, as
the accredited delegate of the M. E. Church, South,
and only invite me to a seat within the bar as due
to me on account of my private and personal
merits. These considerations I shall appreciate,
and will reciprocate them in all the private and
social walks of life; but within the bar of the
General Conference I can only be known in my
official character.

You will therefore regard this communication
as final on the part of the M. E. Church, South.
» She can never renew the offer of fraternal rela-

tions between the two great bodies of Wesleyan
23*
538 Organization of the

Methodists in the United States. But the propo-
sition can be renewed at any time, either now or
hereafter, by the M. E. Church. And if ever
made upon the basis of the Plan of Separation, as
adopted by the General Conference of 1844, the
Church, South, will cordially entertain the propo-
sition.

With sentiments of deep regret, and with feel-
ings of disappointed hopes, I am yours, in Chris-
tian fellowship, L. Pierce,

Delegate from the M. E. Church, South.

PirrspureH, May 9, 1848.

The student of Methodist history will ever feel
surprised no less at the action of the General
Conference in declining to receive Dr. Pierce as
the accredited representative of the Methodist
Episcopal Church, South, bearing tidings of good-
will to those with whom they had once been so
closely identified, and whose history was inter-
woven one with the other, than at the reason they
assigned for this refusal, namely, that “there are
serious questions and difficulties existing between
the two bodies.”

The ‘serious questions and difficulties” have
reference to the claim of the South for their pro-
portion of the property of the Church, to which
they were entitled as provided for in the Plan of
Separation. While an impartial verdict might
M. E. Church, South. 539

admit that this would have been a valid reason
why the Methodist Episcopal Church, South,
should have hesitated to make fraternal proposi-
tions, it can find no plausible pretext on the part
of the Methodist Episcopal Church (North) for
their refusal to accept the kindly offer. We make
no remarks on the action of the General Confer-
ence of the M. E. Church (North). It would be
improper to do so.

Although entirely ignored by the body to ae
he was appointed, other denominations sought the
ministry of Dr. Pierce. The briefness of his stay,
however, only allowed him to preach in a single
pulpit, where a crowded audience was charmed
with his eloquence, and blessed by his fervor and
zeal for his Master’s cause.

At the subsequent General Conference of the
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, held in St.
Louis, in 1850, Dr. Pierce made a full report of
his visit to Pittsburgh, and of the failure of his
mission. In this report he takes occasion to refer
to the kind sentiments expressed by the repre-
sentatives of the British and Canadian Conferences
in reference to the M. E. Church, South. He
says:

“On my way to Pittsburgh, I had the happi-
ness to meet in Baltimore that Christian gentle-
man, and eminent minister of Christ, the Rev. Dr.
Dixon. It having been assumed, as a thing of
540 Organization of the

course, that a Wesleyan minister from England
would indorse every abolition act of the majority,
and knowing as I did that almost every English-
man was committed on the subject of slavery, I
could but feel that caution and reserve were called.
for. My private feelings and almost involuntary
confidence in his well-matured judgment still
urged me to commune fearlessly with him on the
points in dispute between the North and South.
His attention, however, when his ear could be
gained, was called mainly by one of the delegates,
who also had fallen in with the Doctor in Balti-
more. While descending the river from Browns-
ville, in a steamer, the Doctor and myself had
some talk upon the subject of the division of the
Church, and the cause which had led to it, to all
which he listened as one whose heart sympathized
with every interest of the great Wesleyan family.

“When in full view of the city, and knowing we
would soon be separated, I remarked to him that,
although we were delegates sent to the same body
from different portions of one great family, I
feared a very different fate awaited us. ‘You
will be received and welcomed as a messenger of
the Church, while I shall be refused and rejected’

“To these remarks he warmly said, ‘I hope
not;’ adding, ‘If you are rejected, it will be the
occasion of everlasting regret to me.’

“Here we parted, and were but little together
M. E. Church, South. 541

until our departure for Cincinnati, when a gracious
Providence brought us together again on another
fine steamer.

“While on this passage, I found the Doctor in-
tensely engaged reading the books which had been
given him by the Southern preachers on the cause
of division between the North and South. The
facts contained in these records made a deep im-
pression on his mind, and led him to converse
more freely on this, to him, painful occurrence.
He was a man, however, of such finely-balanced
feeling, and well-disciplined mind, that no opinion
was openly expressed. But permit me to say
this much: I believe Dr. Dixon to be a man to-
ward whom the Church, South, should cherish a
high appreciation.

“On this trip to Cincinnati, I had the pleasure
of the company of Brother Ryerson, one of the
delegates from Canada, and the traveling compan-
ion of Dr. Dixon. His more natural and close
relation to the Doctor contributed no little to the
assurance I felt, that he sympathized with us in
feelings of tender regard. The opportunity was
so good, and the pleasure which fraternal inter-
course with any and every legitimate organization
of Wesleyan Methodists would impart, that I
could not fail to ask Brother Ryerson how he
thought an offer from us of friendly relations with
the Canada Conference would be received. To
542 Organization of the

which he replied: ‘Most cordially. Our sympa-
thies are all with the South.’

“In view of these very cordial words, and
prompted, as we ever ought to be, by a pure fra-
ternal love for all the children of Wesley, I would
respectfully suggest the propriety of this General
Conference directing, by resolution, the Bishops,
or a committee created for the purpose, to send
to the next British Conference a letter declaratory
of our firm attachment to Methodism as we re-
ceived it from Mr. Wesley in the days of Bishop
Asbury, and of the pleasure it would afford us to
be recognized by them as a worthy and true-
hearted portion of the great Methodist family.
And also, that the same course be pursued toward
the Canada Conference, asking from each Confer-
ence an answer at their earliest convenience.”

The General Conference accepted the report of
their representative, and adopted the following
resolution:

“Resolved, by the delegates of the Annual Con-
ferences of the M. E. Church, South, in General
Conference assembled, That we will steadfastly
adhere to the ground taken in the last communi-
cation of our delegate to the General Conference.
of the M. E. Church, in Pittsburgh, May, 1848,
to wit: That we cannot, under their act of rejec-
tion and refusal, renew our offer of fraternal rela-
tions and intercourse; but will at all times enter-
M. E. Church, South. 543

tain any proposition coming from the M. E. Church
to us, whether it be by written communication, or
by delegation, having for its object friendly rela-
tions, and predicated of the rights granted to us
by the Plan of Separation adopted in New York,
1844.”

The spirit of charity and Christian forbearance
shown on this occasion by the Methodist Episcopal
Church, South, in their highest representative body,
is worthy of all commendation, and will command
the admiration of the Church of Christ in all the
ages to come. Their proposal of fraternal inter-
course refused—their messenger rejected—instead
of returning “railing for railing,” animated by the
highest interests of Christianity, and the conquests
to which the energies of Methodism were invited,
they declare that while they cannot renew their
offer of fraternal intercourse, they “ will at all times
entertain any proposition coming from the M. E.
Church (North) to us, whether it be by written
communication, or by delegation, having for its
object friendly relations, and predicated of the
rights granted to us by the Plan of Separation.”

With the facts as presented before them, the
M. E. Church, South, could not do more, and were
not willing to do less.*

 

* Almost twenty-three years have elapsed since the Gen-
eral Conference of the M. E. Church (North) rejected the -
544 Organization of the

The property question, however, had not been
settled. This question embraced the interest held
by the South in the Book Concerns in New York
and Cincinnati, including “a common right to the
use of all the copyrights in possession of the Book
Concerns” in these cities, as well as their propor-
tion of the Chartered Fund in Philadelphia. It
also included the transfer “of the printing-presses
in Charleston, Richmond, and Nashville,” and “all
the property of the Methodist Episcopal Church
in meeting-houses, parsonages, colleges, schools,
Conference Funds, cemeteries, and of every kind,
within the limits of the Southern Organization,”
which had previously been claimed by the M. HE.
Church.

To accomplish the transfer of this property with
the greatest facility, Nathan Bangs, George Peck,
and James B. Finley, had been appointed Commis-
sioners on the part of the M. E. Church (North)
“to act in concert with the same number of Com-
missioners appointed by the Southern Organiza-
tion.”

It was thought by some Northern members of
the General Conference of 1844, that the sixth re-
strictive article might possibly prevent the claims

 

proffer of friendly relations with the M. E. Church, South,
and up to this date no proposition has come from them
looking to fraternal intercourse between the two bodies of
Methodists. (See Appendix C.)
M. E. Church, South. 545

of the South on the Book Concerns and Chartered
Fund from being met with even-handed justice;
and in order to guard against this possible contin-
gency, so anxious were they at that time to deal
fairly with the South, that “the Annual Confer-
ences, at their approaching sessions,” were recom-
mended by. the General Conference “ to authorize
a change” of this article, by which all barriers to
a speedy and just settlement might be removed.

The failure to procure the requisite number of
votes by which the sixth restrictive article might
be changed, was not attributable to the South, nor
could it in any way vitiate their claims to a pro
rata division of the property.

In 1846, the General Conference of the Meth-
odist Episcopal Church, South, adopted the follow-
ing report:

Appointment of Commissioners by the General Conference
of the M. E. Church, South, with instructions.

1. Resolved, (by the delegates of the several
Annual Conferences of the Methodist Episcopal
Church, South, in General Conference assembled,)
That three Commissioners be appointed in accord-
ance with the “Plan of Separation” adopted by
the General Conference of the Methodist Episco-
pal Church in 1844, to act in concert with the Com-
missioners appointed by the said M. E. Church, to
estimate the amount due to the South, according
546 Organization of the

to the aforesaid “Plan of Separation,” and to ad-
just and settle all matters pertaining to the divis-
ion of the Church-property and funds, as provided
for in the “ Plan of Separation;’ with full powers
to carry into effect the whole arrangement with
regard to said division.

2. Resolved, That the Commissioners of the M.
E. Church, South, shall forthwith notify the Com-
missioners and Book Agents of the Methodist
Episcopal Church of their appointment as afore-
said, and of their readiness to adjust and settle
the matters aforesaid; and should no such settle-
ment be effected before the session of the General
Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church in
1848, said Commissioners shall have power and
authority for, and in behalf of, this Conference, to
attend the General Conference of the M. E. Church
to settle and adjust all questions involving prop-
erty or funds which may be pending between the
M. E. Church and the M. E. Church, South.

3. Resolved, That should the Commissioners ap-
pointed by this General Conference, after proper
effort, fail to effect a settlement 4s above, then,
and in that case, they shall be, and are hereby,
authorized to take such measures as may best se-
cure the just and equitable claims of the M. E.
Church, South, to the property and funds afore-
said.

4, Resolved, That John Early be, and he is
M. E. Church, South. 54T

hereby, authorized to act as the Agent or Appointee
of the M. E. Church, South, in conformity to the
“Plan of Separation” adopted by the General
Conference of 1844, to receive and hold in trust
for the use and benefit of the M. E. Church,
South, all property and funds, of every descrip-
tion, which may be paid over to him by the agents
of the M. E. Church.

5. Resolved, That the Commissioners, Appointee,
and Book Agent, report to the next General Con-
ference of the M. E. Church, South.

6. Resoled, That should a vacancy occur in the
Board of Commissioners, or in the office of Ap-
pointee,; herein provided for, by death or other-
wise, in the interim of the General Conference,
then, and in that case, the remaining members of
the Board shall have power to fill such vacancy,
with the approbation of one or more of the Bish-
ops. W. A. Suitu, Chairman.

Immediately after the adoption of the report,
the Conference proceeded to the election of the
Commissioners by ballot, and “on the first ballot-
ing, H. B. Bascom, A. L. P. Green, and 8S. A.
Latta were elected.”

From the conciliatory spirit in which the Gen-
eral Conference of 1844 had met the necessities
of the South, and from the anxiety expressed to
do them ample justice, it would be readily sup-
548 Organization of the

posed that the appointment of Commissioners was
only necessary, that authority to receive the pro-
portion of the property due the South might be
somewhere invested.

On the 25th of August, 1846, Messrs. Bascom,
Green, and Latta met in Cincinnati, and addressed
the following communication to the Commissioners
who had been appointed by the M. E. Church
(North) :

The undersigned Commissioners, appointed by
the late General Conference of the Methodist
Episcopal Church, South, in accordance with the
Plan of Separation, adopted by the General Con-
ference of the Methodist Episcopal Church in
1844, to act in concert with the Commissioners of
said Methodist Episcopal Church, specially ap-
pointed for the purpose, in estimating the amount
of property and funds due to the Methodist Epis-
copal Church, South, according to the Plan of Sep-
aration aforesaid, and to adjust and settle all mat-
ters pertaining to the division of the Church-prop-
erty and funds as agreed upon and provided for in
said plan, with full powers at the same time to
carry into effect the whole arrangement with re-
gard to said division of property, would respect-
fully give notice to the Rev. Dr. Bangs, Dr. Peck,
and Rev. James B. Finley, Commissioners, and the
Rev. George Lane and C. B. Tippett, Book Agents
M. E. Church, South. 549

of the Methodist Episcopal Church, that they are
prepared to act in concert with them, as the Plan
of Separation contemplates, and requests in an
amicable attempt to settle and adjust all the mat-
ters and interests to which the appointment of each
Board of Commissioners relates—that is to say,
all questions involving property and funds which
may be pending between the Methodist Episcopal
Church, and the Methodist Episcopal Church,
South. And as necessary to such a result, in the
judgment of the Commissioners, South, they would
respectfully suggest and urge the propriety and
necessity of a joint meeting of the Board of Com-
missioners, North and South, at a period as early
as practicable, that the intention of the Plan of
Separation, in this respect, may not be defeated
by unnecessary delay. It has been the aim of the
General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal
Church, South, to see that all the terms and stipu-
lations of the Plan of Separation be strictly com-
plied with on their part, and provision has been
accordingly made that the Rev. John Early, Book
Agent of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South,
and its appointee to receive the property and funds
falling due to the South, be duly and properly
clothed with the legal and corporate powers re-
quired by the Plan of Separation. And the un-
dersigned Commissioners are not able to perceive
any valid reason or reasons why the negotiation
500 Organization of the

respecting the division of property should not pro-
ceed in the hands of the joint Commissioners with-
out delay, and hence request the joint meeting of
the Commissioners of the bodies they represent to
judge and determine whether the Annual Confer-
ences have authorized the change of the sixth re-
strictive rule; and as no such decision can be had
until given by them, it seems important that such
decision should be given by them as soon as prac-
ticable, and we know of no mode of conclusive
action in the case, except by a joint meeting of
the Commissioners. The Plan of Separation pro-
vides for no intermediate action between that of
the Annual Conferences and that to be had by the
Commissioners, and unless the Commissioners orth
are in possession of information, clear and satis-
factory, that the action of the Annual Conferences,
in the aggregate vote given by them, is adverse to
the recommendation of the General Conference, it
is obviously made their duty, by the Plan of Sep-
aration, to meet and decide the question. From
all the information in our possession, we see no
reason why we should not act upon the assump-
tion that the proposed change in the restrictive
rule has been authorized. The language of the
Discipline is, “ Upon the concurrent recommenda-
tion of three-fourths of all the members of the
several Annual Conferences, who shall be present
and vote upon such recommendations.” The lan-
| M. E. Church, South. 551

guage of the Plan of Separation is, “ Whenever
the Annual Conferences, by a vote of three-fourths
of all their members voting on the third resolu-
tion.” It follows, hence, that both by the lan-
guage of the Discipline, and that of the Plan of
Separation, the question was to be settled by the
ageregate vote of those members of the several
Annual Conferences who were present in their an-
nual sessions when the question came up, and actu-
ally voted upon it. If any refused or failed to vote,
with such we have nothing to do; they cannot be
regarded as either for or against the measure.
They declined the right of suffrage by refusing to
act, and the determination of the question rests
with those who were present and voted in accord-
ance with the law. In the instance of several
Annual Conferences the vote was contingent, and
future events, now to be judged of by the Commis-
sioners, were to give an affirmative or negative char-
acter to their votes. In the instance of two of
these at least, (and we believe it to be equally true
of four,) it is susceptible of the clearest proof, that
by their own official showing, their votes must, be-
yond all doubt, be counted in the affirmative, or
not at all; and in either case, and indeed without
reference to either, taking no account of the Con-
ferences which refused to vote, it is believed the
constitutional majority of all the votes given was
in favor of the change; and it will, it seems to us,
552 Organization of the

devolve upon the Commissioners of the Methodist
Episcopal Church to make the contrary appear be-
fore they can, in good faith, refuse to carry into
effect the Plan of Separation. To settle this ques-
tion fairly and honorably, and in accordance with
the facts in the case, it is believed that a meeting
‘of the Commissioners is indispensable. To this
we may add, that the most weighty considerations,
both of justice and humanity, demand alike that
the question be settled as early as possible, as the
dividends to which we are declared entitled by the
Plan of Separation, and which that plan pledges
shall be paid to us, until the division of property
shall actually take place, have already been with-
held, and our “traveling, supernumerary, super-
annuated, and worn-out preachers, their wives,
widows, and children, are literally suffering for
the want of funds given in trust for their support
—funds to which the General Conference of 1844
not only declared them entitled, but solemnly
stipulated to divide with them upon principles of
‘Christian kindness and strictest equity.’”

The division of property and funds stipulated
contemplates no gratuity to the South, for it is
well known that in receiving all the Plan of Sep-
aration accords to us, we are receiving but a part
of what the South has contributed to the common
fund in question.

There is another view of this subject which, in
M. E. Church, South. 553

our judgment, should not be overlooked by the
Commissioners. The proposed change in the re-
strictive rule was regarded by all who favored the
Plan of Separation in the General Conference
of 1844, merely as means to an end. The end
aimed at was an equitable division of the Church-
property; and the more certainly and securely
to effect this, within the established forms of
law and order, the change in question was pro-
posed; such change, however, or the want of it,
cannot possibly affect, in any form, the question
of right or the true issue in a legal process,
should it be found necessary to institute such
process.

The Methodist Episcopal Church, South, intends
a most sacred appropriation of the funds they may
receive, exclusively to the purposes specified in
the sixth restrictive article, and not intending to
divert them in any way to any other object or
purpose, the change recommended by the General
Conference can only be regarded as a matter of
form, subordinate, in every high moral and legal
sense, to the end had in view by the body in the
adoption of the Plan of Separation. The object
in calling attention to this view of the subject is
not in any way to supersede the Plan of Separa-
tion, but to insist, as we shall always continue to
do, that unless the letter of the plan shall inter-

pose insuperable difficulties, its spirit and inten-
24
554 Organization of the

tion plainly and imperatively demand, at the
hands of the Commissioners, that they carry it
into effect, and that they cannot fail to do so
without a grave abuse of the trust reposed in
them. Hence, again, we urge that a meeting of
the Commissioners at any early day is necessary
to settle this preliminary question, which, it ap-
pears to us, can be conclusively settled in no other
way.

It certainly cannot be necessary that we remind
the Commissioners and Book Agents of the Meth-
odist Episcopal Church, that the peace and quiet,
not less than the character and hopes of the Church,
North and South, urgently require that this great
property question be settled as soon as practica-
ble; and we are most anxious that it should be
done amicably and with good feeling, and especially
that it may be done without an appeal to the civil
tribunals of the country; and the General Confer-
ence of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South,
have accordingly instructed their Commissioners to
look to such an issue as the last resort, in view of
the adjustment aimed at.

In conclusion, the Commissioners of the Meth-
odist Episcopal Church, South, in view of the facts
and considerations to which they have adverted in
this communication, would respectfully and ur-
gently call upon Dr. Bangs, as Chairman of the
Commissioners of the Methodist Episcopal Church,
M. E. Church, South. 555 *

to call a meeting of the joint Board of Commis-
sioners, as herein before indicated, and we cheer-
fully concede to him the right, so far as we are
concerned, of fixing the time and place at any pe-
riod between the last of October and the first of
March next.
Very respectfully,

H. B. Bascom,

A. L. P. Green,

8. A. Larra.

Cincinnati, Onto, August 25, 1846.

P. S.—We would respectfully ask and claim,
upon the ground of justice and right, that the:
Commissioners and Book Agents of the Methodist
Episcopal Church make a direct call, by authority
of the General Conference of 1844, upon the Sec-
retaries of all the Annual Conferences of the Meth-
odist Episcopal Church for an authentic, attested
statement of the vote or action of each Conference
in relation to the change of the sixth restrictive
rule, and the Commissioners of the Methodist Epis-
copal Church, South, will do the same within the
limits of the Southern Organization.

H. B. Bascom,
A. L. P. Green,
8. A. Larra.

To this communication the following reply was
made :
- 566 Organization of the

To H. B. Bascom, A. L. P. Green, and S. A. Latta, Com-
missioners of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South.
Dear Breruren :—We have received your com-

munication, dated the 25th August, 1846, request-

ing us to call a joint meeting of the Commission-

ers appointed by the General Conference of 1844

of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and the Com-

missioners appointed by the General Conference
of 1845 of the Methodist Episcopal Church,

South, in order to adjust the property question,

‘as-provided for in the Provisional Plan of Sep-
aration, adopted by the General Conference of

1844.

In reply to this, we have to say-that, in our
judgment, we have no authority to act in the
premises, as we have never been officially notified
that the requisite number of votes in the several
Annual Conferences has been given in favor of the
alteration in the sixth restrictive rule in the con-
stitution of the Church, nor have we any author-
ity to call on the Secretaries of the several An-
nual Conferences to give us the requisite informa-
tion as you have suggested.

On these accounts we must respectfully decline
to act in the premises, as our action would, in our
opinion, be null and void. N. Bayes,

Gro. Peck,
J. B. Finzey.
New York, October 14, 1846.
M. E. Church, South. 557

From this period until the subsequent meeting
of the General Conference of the M. E. Church
(North), no farther steps were taken by the South-
ern Commissioners. The General Conference met
in Pittsburgh on the first day of May, 1848, and
on the 12th the Commissioners of the M. E.
Church, South, submitted to that body the following
communication :

PirrspurcH, May 11, 1848.

Rey. anv Dear Breruren:—The undersigned
Commissioners and Appointee of the Methodist
Episcopal Church, South, respectfully represent to
your body that, pursuant to our appointment, and
in obedience to specific instructions, we notified
the Commissioners and Agent of the Methddist
Episcopal Church of our readiness to proceed to
the adjustment of the property question according
to the Plan of Separation adopted by the General
Conference of 1844. And we furthermore state,
that the Chairman of the Board of Commissioners
of the Methodist Episcopal Church informed us
they would not act in the case, and referred us to
your body for the settlement of the question as to
the division of the property and funds of the
Church. And being furthermore instructed by
the General Conference of the Methodist Episco-
pal Church, South, in case of a failure to settle
with your Commissioners, to attend the session of
558 Organization of the

your body in 1848, for the “settlement and ad-
justment of all questions involving property and
funds, which may be pending between the Meth-
odist Episcopal Church and the Methodist Episco-
pal Church, South,” take this method of inform-
ing you of our presence, and of our readiness to
attend to the matters committed to our trust and
agency by the Methodist Episcopal Church, South;
and we desire to be informed as to the time and
manner in which it may suit your views and con-
venience to consummate with us the division of
the property and funds of the Church, as provided
for in the Plan of Separation, adopted with so
much unanimity by the General Conference of
1844, And for our authority in the premises, we
respectfully refer you to the accompanying docu-

ment, marked A.

A. L. P. Green,
C. B. Parsons, Commissioners.
L. Prerce,

Joun Harty, Appointee.

This communication was accompanied with a
document, properly authenticated, showing the au-
thority under which the Southern Commissioners
were acting.

To this communication no reply was made, nor
was it even referred to a committee.

On the 18th the following letter was addressed
M. E. Church, South. 559

by the Commissioners of the M. E. Church,
South, to the Commissioners of the M. E. Church
(North) :

PrrrspurGH, 18th May, 1848.

The undersigned, Commissioners of the M. E.
Church, South, appointed by the General Confer-
ence of said Church, in accordance with the Plan
of Separation, adopted by the General Conference
of the M. E. Church in 1844, would respectfully
represent to Rev. Nathan Bangs, George Peck,
and James B. Finley, Commissioners on the part
of the M. E. Church, that it is important their
stay in the city should not be prolonged beyond the
period necessary to accomplish, as far as may be
found practicable, the objects. of their commission.
And with a view to a correct decision in the
case, the undersigned beg leave to inquire—lIst.
Whether, as Commissioners, appointed by the Gen-
eral Conference of 1844, to act in concert with a
similar Board of Commissioners in behalf of the
Church, South, provided for in the Plan of Sep-
aration, you regard yourselves as authorized to
act in the premises, under the authority above;
and if so, in what form? 2d. Should your an-
swer to this inquiry be in the negative, we would
respectfully ask, Have you any thing to propose
to us, as Commissioners of the M. E. Church,
South, designed to carry into effect the provisions
560 Organization of the

of the Plan of Separation, having reference to the
division of the Church-property ?
Very truly and respectfully,
H. B. Bascom,
A. L. P. Grezn,
C. B. Parsons.
Rev. N. Bangs, Geo. Peck, and Jas. B. Finley.

On the 20th of the month Mr. Finley presented
this letter to the General Conference, and moved
its reference to the Committee on the State of the
Church. He afterward withdrew the motion to
refer, when it was renewed by Mr. Creagh, of the
New York Conference. To prevent its reference,
however, Mr. Finley withdrew the paper.

On the same day Messrs. Peck and Finley re-
plied as follows to the communication of Messrs.
Bascom, Green, and Parsons :

PrirtspureH, May 20; 1848.
Rev. Messrs. H. B. Bascom, D.D., A. L. P. Green, and C.

B. Parsons:

GENTLEMEN :—The undersigned have the honor
to acknowledge the receipt of your communi-
cation of the 18th inst., and would respectfully
reply : .

1. That the conditions upon which their pow-
ers, as “ Commissioners” appointed by the General
Conference at its session in 1844, were made to
M. E. Church, South. 561

depend, having failed, they have not, and never
had, power to act in the matter in question.

2. In accordance with the above view, they
would respectfully say that they have nothing to
“propose” to you touching these matters.

With sentiments of esteem, yours,

Gerorce Peck,
James B. FINey.

Tt will be borne in mind that the reason given
by the General Conference for declining to receive
Dr. Pierce as a fraternal messenger from the M.
E. Church, South, was, that “serious questions
and difficulties” existed “ between the two bodies.”
It has -already been stated that these “serious
questions and difficulties” had reference to the
property in which the South had an interest. The
question will naturally occur, Why, if the M. E.
Church (North) was willing to deal justly with
the South, and to settle the points at issue, did
the General Conference refuse to entertain the
communication from the Southern Commissioners?
The South asked for nothing to which they were
not entitled, and which had not been conceded by
the Plan of Separation. To the building up of
the Book Concerns in New York and Cincinnati,
as well as the Chartered Fund, the South had la-
bored with untiring energy, as well as contributed

their money. When the Book Concern in New
24*
562 Organization of the

York, in 1834, was destroyed by fire, the Church
in the South, as well as in the North, aided with
large contributions to raise it from its ruins.

The duties of the Southern Commissioners, so
far as they referred to the several Conferences of
the M. E. Church (North), having been performed,
they left for their homes. Their presence in Pitts-
burgh, however, had excited extraordinary inter-
est, and its influence was felt in the General Con-
ference. This body was not content with its own
action, or rather its want of action, and hence
it gave evidence of unrest.

On the 18th of May, two days previous to
the date of the letter addressed by the South-
ern Commissioners to Messrs. Peck and Finley,
Mr. Finley offered the following preamble and
resolution, which was laid on the table for the
present :

“Whereas, the division of the Book Concern,
and other Church-property, with the Church, South,
has not been authorized by the vote of the An-
nual Conferences, as provided for in the Plan of
Separation ; and, whereas, they still claim that we
owe them, which involves questions of great mag-
nitude and importance; therefore,

“Resolved, That the Committee on the State of
the Church be instructed to inquire into the pro-
priety and expediency of offering to refer the
above question to disinterested arbiters, to be
M. E. Church, South. 563

chosen by the parties, for amicable adjustment,
and report thereon.”

On the 26th of the month the General Confer-
ence declared the Plan of Separation “null and
void.”

On the following day George Peck, the Chair-
man of the Committee on the State of the Church,
presented so much of their report as referred to
the “property question.” It reads as follows:

The Committee on the State of the Church beg
leave farther to report, in part—.

That they have had under consideration the
claims preferred by the Church, South, to a por-
tion of the property of the Book Concern and
Chartered Fund; and, pending the discussion of
the subject, the question of proposing to refer the
whole matter to disinterested arbiters was proposed
and considered. Whereupon the committee agreed
to recommend to the General Conference for adop-
tion the following resolutions :

“Resolved, 1. That it is the sense of this Con-
ference that we have no authority, independently
of the Annual Conferences, to enter into arbitra-
tion with the Commissioners of the Methodist
Episcopal Church, South, in relation to the claims
set up by them to a division of the vested funds.
of the Methodist Episcopal Church.

“Resolved, 2. That this General Conference rec-
564 Organization of the

ommend to the Annual Conferences so far to sus-
pend the sixth restrictive rule of the Discipline as
to allow the appointment of Commissioners, for the
purpose of arbitrating what is technically called
the Property Question with the Commissioners of
the Methodist Episcopal Church, South.

“ By order of the committee.

“ Respectfully submitted,
“Grorce Prcx, Chairman.”
a

This report was supported by a long speech

from Mr. Peck, at the close of which the follow-
-ing substitute was offered by John F. Wright, of
Ohio:

“‘ Whereas, it is now ascertained that the recom-
mendation of the General Conference of 1844, to
change the sixth restrictive article, so as to allow
of a division of the property of the Book Concern,
with distinct ecclesiastical connection, which might
be formed by the thirteen Annual Conferences in
the slaveholding States, has not been concurred in
by a vote of three-fourths of all the members of
the several Annual Conferences present and vot-
ing on said recommendations;

“And, whereas, the thirteen protesting Annual
Conferences in the slaveholding States, having
formed themselves into a separate and distinct ec-
clesiastical organization, under the title or name
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, and
M. E. Church, South. 565

their General Conference in May, 1846, did au-
thorize their Commissioners (whose credentials have
been received by this General Conference) to
present and adjust their claim on the funds of
the Book Concern of the Methodist Episcopal
Church ;

“And, whereas, our common and holy Christian-
ity prescribes and enjoins the most pacific meas-
ures for the settlement of all matters in dispute
between individuals, as well as associations of pro-
fessing Christians; and the whole Christian world
expect ministers of the Lord Jesus Christ to adopt
the most peaceful and conciliatory measures for the
settlement of any claim that may be urged against
them ; therefore,

“Resolved, (by the delegates of the several An-
nual Conferences in General Conference assem-
bled,) That we propose to the Commissioners of
the Church, South, to refer the question of their
claim on our Book Concern to jive arbiters, neither
of whom shall be a member of either Church, who
shall be chosen in the manner here prescribed,
namely :

“The Commissioners of the M. E. Church, South,
shall choose two arbiters; and three Commission-
ers, to be appointed by this General Conference,
shall choose other two; and the four arbiters thus
chosen shall choose a fifth, each party being sol-
emnly bound to abide by the decision such ar-
566 Organization of the

biters shall make on the questions of such
claims.”

This substitute was laid on the table.

Dr. Holdich offered and moved the following
substitute, stating it to be a paper presented by
the Bishops in response to a written request of
several delegates that they would communicate
their opinions in regard to the Property Ques-
tion :

“ Whereas, H. B. Bascom, D.D., A. L. P. Green,
and C. B. Parsons, Commissioners of the M. E.
Church, South, have visited the seat of this Con-
ference to urge a claim to a portion of the funds
of the Book Concern, based, it is understood, on
an act of the last General Conference, known as
the ‘Report of the Committee of Nine;’

“And, whereas, the non-concurrence of the An-
nual Conferences in that part of said report which
bears on the division of said funds, leaves this
General Conference without any authority to recog-
nize or adjust said claim in any voluntary way;

“And, whereas, it is understood from the peri-
odicals of the M. E. Church, South, and from con-
versations with some of said Commissioners, that
a suit at law will be resorted to for the recovery
of said claim ;

“And, whereas, the commencement of this suit
will change the form of this difficulty, rendering
it a mere business transaction, so as to throw it
M. E. Church, South. 567

within the constitutional control of the General
Conference ;

“And, whereas, it is understood that the Com-
missioners would accept none but a strictly legal
arbitration ;

“And, whereas, this Conference desires to ad-
vance as far as its constitutional power will au-
thorize toward an amicable adjustment of this
difficulty; therefore,

“Resolved, (by the General Conference of the M.
E. Church,) 1. That should such lawsuit be com-
menced by the Commissioners, our Book Agents
at New York and Cincinnati be, and are hereby,
authorized and advised to tender to said Commis-
sioners an adjustment of the claim, based on the
report aforesaid by arbitration, under such legal
sanctions as shall render the award final, and of
binding effect on the M. HE. Church, and the M.
E. Church, South.

“Resolved, 2. That inasmuch as the General Con-
ference is not formally assured that such suit will
be commenced, and inasmuch as an amicable set-
tlement of the difficulty is in any event exceed-
ingly desirable, and inasmuch as this General Con-
ference has no power or authority to act at discre-
tion in this matter, either to allow or arbitrate said
claim, if not prosecuted in court, unless the An-
nual Conferences authorize it by a change of the
constitution, it is hereby recommended to the An-
568 Organization of the

nual Conferences, if said suit is not commenced,
so far to suspend the sixth ‘restrictive article’ of
the Discipline as to authorize our Book Agents at
New York and Cincinnati to submit to arbitrate
what is technically called the Property Ques-
tion. |

“Resolved, 3. That in case said suit is not coth-
menced, the Bishops are requested to lay the last
resolution before the Annual Conferences for their
concurrence.”

The substitute offered by Dr. Holdich met the
same fate as the one proposed by Mr. Wright.

The General Conference was evidently greatly
perplexed. They were in a dilemma, from the
meshes of which extrication was by no means
easy. All over the Methodist Episcopal Church
(North) were to be found men of sound judgment
and enlightened piety, in communion with the
Church, who regarded the claims of the Southern
Division to a pro rata proportion of the property
as not only beyond dispute, but as too sacred to
be denied them.

The verdict of popular opinion throughout the
Northern States was in favor of the Southern
claims, while in the General Conference were min-
isters eminent for their learning and piety, who,
though in the minority, were unwilling to com-
promise their honor by an act of repudiation. In
the midst of the confusion Jesse T. Peck offered
M. E. Church, South. 569

the following substitute, which was seconded by
James B. Finley:

“Whereas, the Methodist Episcopal Church,
South, having in due form preferred claims against
the vested funds and other property of the Meth-
odist Episcopal Church ; and, whereas, the General
Conference has no power officially to respond to,
or in any way adjust, said preferred claims; and,
whereas, we are anxious that an amicable and
strictly equitable disposition may be made of them;
therefore,

“1. Resolved, (by the delegates of the several
Annual Conferences of the Methodist Episcopal
Church in General Conference assembled,) That
we hereby advise the Book Agents at New York
and Cincinnati, immediately, in due form, and
under such instructions as this Conference shall
hereafter give them, to offer to submit said preferred
claims to the full and final decision of judicious and
disinterested arbiters.

“2. Resolved, That a committee of be ap-
pointed to report in detail to this Conference suit-
able instructions to be communicated to the said
Agents for the government of their action in the
premises.”

The morning session closed without any action
on the substitute of Messrs. Peck and Finley. On
the afternoon of the same day Mr. Finley advo-
cated the preamble and resolutions in a speech of

 
570 Organization of the

Considerable length, and was followed by Peter
Akers, of the Illinois Conference.

The evening session, however, adjourned with-
out reaching any conclusion. In the meantime
the Sabbath intervened, and on Monday the follow-
ing was offered by Mr. Akers, and referred to the
Committee on the Book Concern:

“Resolved, That the Book Agents at New York
be, and they are hereby, instructed to pay over
to such person or persons as the said Book Agents
may judge to be authorized to receive and receipt
for the same in behalf of the several claimants
narrated below, so much of the disciplinary allow-
ances as may be due from year to year to the
widows and orphans of such traveling, supernu-
merary, superannuated, and worn-out preachers, as
have died in the service of the Methodist Episco-
pal Church before the organization of the Meth-
odist Episcopal Church, South; also the superan-
nuated preachers who still adhere to the Method-
ist Episcopal Church, so that such widows and
orphans, and superannuated and supernumerary
preachers aforesaid, living within the bounds of
the several Annual Conferences of the Methodist
Episcopal Church, South, may receive what may
be equal in amount to that which widows and or-
phans in the Methodist Episcopal Church may
have received, or shall hereafter receive, from the
dividends made annually from the Book Concern.”
M. E. Church, South. 571

On the afternoon of Monday, the 29th, Mt. .
Brenton, of North Indiana Conference, offered the
following, which was presented by D. Curry and
M. Simpson:

“ Whereas, it is now ascertained that the recom-
mendation of the General Conference, at its ses-
sion in 1844, to change the sixth restrictive arti-
cle so as to allow of a division of the property
of the Book Concern, with a distinct ecclesiastical
connection, which might be formed by the thirteen
Annual Conferences in the slave States, has not
been concurred in by a vote of three-fourths of all
the members of the several Annual Conferences
present and voting on said recommendation ;

“‘And, whereas, the thirteen protesting Annual
Conferences in the slaveholding States have formed
themselves into a separate and distinct ecclesiastical
connection, under the title and name of the ‘Meth-
odist Episcopal Church, South, and their General
Conference in 1846 did authorize three Commis-
sioners (whose credentials have been received by
this General Conference) to present and adjust
their claim on the funds of the Book Concern of
the Methodist Episcopal Church ;

“And, whereas, our common and holy Christian-
ity prescribes and enjoins the most pacific meas-
ures for the settlement of all matters in dispute
between individuals, as well as associations of pro-
fessing Christians, and the whole Christian world
572 Organization of the

will expect ministers of the Lord Jesus Christ to
adopt the most peaceful and conciliatory measures
for the settlement of any claim that may be urged
against them ;

“And, whereas, this Conference desires to ad-
vance, as far as its constitutional powers will au-
thorize, toward an amicable adjustment of this
difficulty; therefore,

“1. Resolved, (by the delegates of the several
Annual Conferences of the Methodist Episcopal
Church in General Conference assembled,) That
we hereby authorize the Book Agents at New
York and at Cincinnati to offer to submit said
claims to the decision of disinterested arbiters,
provided that if said Agents, on the advice of
eminent legal counsel, shall be satisfied that when
clothed with all the authority which the General
Conference can confer, their corporate powers will
not warrant them to submit said claims to arbitra-
tion, this resolution shall not be binding upon them.

“2. Resolved, That should the Agents find, upon
taking such legal counsel, that they have not the
power to submit the case to voluntary arbitration,
and should a suit at law be commenced by the
Commissioners of the Methodist Episcopal Church,
South, said Agents are hereby authorized, then and
in that case, to tender to said Commissioners an
adjustment of their preferred claims by a legal ar-
bitration, under the authority of the court.
M. E. Church, South. 573

“3. Resolved, That should the Agents find that -
they are not authorized to tender a voluntary ar-
bitration, and should no suit be commenced by the
Commissioners aforesaid, then and in that case the
General Conference being exceedingly desirous of
effecting an amicable settlement of said claim,
recommend to the Annual Conferences so far to
suspend the ‘sixth restrictive article’ of the
Discipline, as to authorize our Book Agents at
New York and Cincinnati to submit said claim to
arbitration.

“4, Resolved, That in the occurrence of the
above specified contingencies, the Bishops are re-
quested to lay the foregoing resolutions before
the several Annual Conferences for their concur-
rence.”

The first resolution was adopted by a majority
of three votes; the second by a majority of forty-
nine; the third by a majority of fifty-seven; on
the fourth resolution the vote was not counted,
being taken by lifting the hand.

It will always be a source of regret that the
Methodist Episcopal Church (North) refused to
comply with the Plan of Separation in reference
to the division of the property, which belonged in
common to the two branches of Methodism. The
action of the General Conference of 1848, in de-
claring the agreement entered into between the
North and South in 1844 to be null and void, and
574 Organization of the

withholding from the minority what was justly
theirs, can find justification nowhere.

The substitute adopted by that body must al-
ways be regarded as an evasion of the question,

by no means creditable to so august an assembly _

as a General Conference.

In referring to this action, the Commissioners
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, in
their “Appeal to Public Opinion,” thus speak :

“This ‘so-called’ proposition to arbitrate is
uniquely curious in nearly all its aspects. It is
so completely made up of conditions, shifts, and
evasions, it is difficult to keep it in the mind long
enough to analyze and detect its falsehoods. ‘If’
legal advice should so decide—‘if’ the Agents them-
selves are ‘satisfied’—‘if’ their ‘corporate powers
will warrant’—‘if’ they find they have not power
—‘if’ legal advice be against it—‘if’ suit be com-
menced, then, ‘if’ they choose, they can offer a
legal arbitration—or of course let it alone, and
with the warrant of indemnity before them, de-
clare the whole movement ‘null and void!’ The
chances of escape, however, are not exhausted.
It is found the General Conference cannot do what
they had seemed to do: with no right themselves
to arbitrate, they can confer none, and hence new
difficulties—‘should’ the Agents find they are not
authorized—‘should’ the South not commence
suit—‘then, and in that case,’ they recommend the
M. E. Church, South. 575

Annual Conferences, not to authorize settlement
and payment according to contract, but to permit
arbitration—the arbitrators to say whether the
General Conference shall keep faith and contract
with the South, as pledged and conditioned in
1844!

“Finally, ‘in the occurrence of the above speci-
fied contingencies’—all of them, of course—when
even the mathematical improbabilities in the case
must have amounted to an indefinite postponement
of the whole question in the minds of the body
thus legislating—then the Bishops are ‘requested’
to bring the matter before the Annual Conferences!
And suppose the Annual Conferences consented
to an arbitration, and ‘eminent legal counsel’ ad-
vised against it, in that event, of course, Agents
would not act upon the permission of the Annual
Conference, and the whole would be a nullity. Or,
suppose counsel and Agents went for arbitration
under the quasi grant of the General Conference,
without consulting the Annual Conferences, then
by the declared judgment of the General Confer-
ence, we should have a nullity again, as the right
is assumed to be in the Annual Conferences ex-
clusively. There is no ground of trust in any
respect in which the subject is presented, upon
which the South can repose without the fair prob-
ability of being farther decéived. Say that the
Annual Conferences consent to arbitration in 1849,
576 Organization of the

what reason have we to believe they would not
reverse the decision in 1850? They promised an
equitable division of the property with us through
their ‘supreme’ representative council in 1844,
and denied the obligation in 1845, and how far
will this go to show they are likely to keep faith
in future? Or if they should, what security have
we that the next Northern General Conference
would not undo the whole, and declare it ‘null and
void, should the arbitration be favorable to the
South? We had their public pledge in 1844, and
have found it good for nothing; and what is going
to make it any better in 1848, or subsequently?
Must the fact that we have been deceived by them
once, be received as a good reason why we shall
not be a second time? What can be seen or found
in all this to give us confidence? We contend
with a party ‘doubly armed.’ If they pledge and
promise us, as a General Conference, they release
themselves in Annual Conference, where the same
men reiippear as a separate disinterested party!
The constituents refuse to be bound by the official
acts of their representatives. The representatives
repudiate their own acts, by resolving themselves,
in Annual Conference, into the common constit-
uency! We cannot trust men or movements of
this description, and do not intend to be deceived
by either any farther. The General Conference
repudiate because, as they tell us, the Annual
M. E. Church, South. 577

Conferences so decided; and when we remind them
of their dishonored faith, they refer us for remedy
to the Annual Conferences! The nullification
force at Pittsburgh has not alarmed us so much
as to induce us to concede important rights in
order to be informed by arbitrators whether we
have any! So far from this, we intend the move-
ment shall be of service to our cause. By de-
claring the Plan ‘null and void,’ because ‘violated’
by the South, they admit the compact character and
treaty vights of the instrument, and the nullifiers
are thus held to the responsibility of the original
contract, unless they make good their charge of
fundamental violation by the South, of the proba-
bility of which the reader by this time will be
able to judge pretty correctly.”

There were leading men in the North, among
whom the Hon. Judge McLean was prominent,
who deprecated the course pursued by this Gen-
eral Conference. In one of his letters to the Chair-
man of the Board of Southern Commissioners he
said: “My wish is to recognize the South as the
same Church, ander a distinct organization, which
results from their docad institutions—that there
be an equitable division of the Church-property,
and that the same feeling of Christian fellowship
and love shall be cherished as before the separa-
tion.”

There was no wish on the part of the South to

25
578 Organization of the

appeal to the civil court, while there remained a
vestige of hope of settlement without such appeal.
It had, however, become evident that unless re-
dress was sought through this medium, the claims
of justice would never be met.

On the 9th of September, 1848, a meeting of
the Commissioners of the Methodist Episcopal
Church, South, was held, and the following ex-
planatory statement and resolution were unani-
mously adopted—Bishops Soule, Andrew, Capers,
and Paine, and the Rev. John Early, Book Agent,
being present and consenting:

The Commissioners having been strongly im-
pressed for the last four years with the apprehen-
sion that no fair and equitable settlement of the
property question between the Northern and
Southern divisions of the Church could be had
without an appeal to legal process, had purposed
bringing suit in conformity with the instructions
under which they acted, early after the adjourn-
ment of the late Northern General Conference,
should that body fail to take any conclusive action
in the premises, and were only deterred from doing
so by the attempt of that body to secure the sanc-
tion of the Church and public opinion to a mode
of settlement’ in contravention of the Plan of
Separation, and to which the Southern Commis-
sioners could not consent without admitting the
M. E. Church, South. 579

invalidity of that instrument; and having waited
nearly four months, in deference to what public
opinion might require of us, and in courtesy to
the adverse party, without having received any
proposition from the Church, North, the Northern
General Conference having avowed want of au-
thority to act in the case, and having failed to
secure the constitutional majority of two-thirds
preparatory to a change of the restriction, pleaded
as a barrier to action, and without which no change
of the restriction can be even recommended by the
General Conference; and action having been had
by several of the Northern Annual Conferences
authorizing the opinion that the requisite three-
fourths majority of their members would never
consent to any mode of settlement to which the
South could consent without the forfeiture of impor-
tant rights; these Conferences, moreover, having
failed at their recent sessions to make any move-
ment toward a change of the sixth restriction, and
several Annual Conferences, South, as well as in-
dividual claimants, having intimated a determina-
tion to seek legal redress independently of the
Commissioners unless they proceed to bring suit—
the long-neglected claims of the superannuated
ministers, their wives, widows, and children, upon
which many of them have to rely for subsistence
almost exclusively, being extremely urgent—the
Church, South, being unwilling to create another
580 Organization of the

similar fund until it is known, after fair legal trial,
that our equitable share of the existing fund can-
not be recovered; and as arbitration is spoken of
not in fulfillment of the contract between the par-
ties, but as a consequence of its denial and repu-
diation, the adverse party thus seeking to avail
themselves of a false issue deeply injurious to the
South as a mode of settlement, and to which the
Southern Commissioners had explicitly informed
them they could not submit; and having informed
the Rev. George Lane, the principal Book Agent,
North, at his own request in May last, that we could
not under our instructions consistently delay bring-
ing suit to a period later than the date of the action
now had; and believing the late General Confer-
ence had no authority or control of any kind over
the property question, except in accordance with
the conditions of the contract, as they had by
special provision and transfer at the session of
1844 placed the entire settlement of the whole
question in the hands of Agents and Commission-
ers; and regarding the action of the late General
Conference in their attempt at the destruction
of the Plan of Separation, and the substitution
of a new and adverse mode of settlement, placing
in jeopardy rights and claims previously admitted
and provided for, as a gross, unlawful trespass,
and, therefore, null and void in all its aspects
and bearings—for these reasons, in connection
M. E£. Church, South. 581

with the facts and reasonings of the foregoing
Appeal, of which this brief statement and the
accompanying resolution form a part — there-
fore, deeply regretting the necessity of the meas-
ure, but deeming it important to the interests in-
volved,

Resolved, That it is expedient and necessary, in
view of the rights and interests in controversy,
that the necessary suits be instituted as soon as
practicable, for the recovery of the funds and
property falling due to the Methodist Episcopal
Church, South, under the contract of the Plan of
Separation, adopted by the General Conference of
1844, H. B. Bascom,

A. L. P. Green,
S, A, Larra.*

We have already referred to the property to
which the South would be entitled under the Plan
of Separation. The first suit was brought in the
city of New York, against George Lane and
others, for a division of the Book Concern in that

 

*As H. B. Bascom did not reach Pittsburgh until the 13th
of May, Dr. Pierce was in due form substituted in his place
ad interim, and his name accordingly appended to a com-
munication addressed to the General Conference. Dr. Latta
being prevented by extreme illness from meeting the Com-
missioners in Pittsburgh in May, 1848, the Rev. C. B. Par-
sons was duly appointed ad interim in his stead.
582 Organization of the

city. The ablest counsel was employed on both
sides—for the plaintiffs, D. Lord, Hon. Reverdy
Johnson, and Mr. Johnson, Jr.; and for the de-
fendants, Hon. Rufus Choate, George Wood, and
E. L. Fancher.

The case was tried before the Hon. Judges Nel-
son and Betts. It was opened on the 19th of
May, 1851, by Mr. Lord. The speeches on both
sides of the question were distinguished for their
clearness and logical force. Every argument that
could be brought to bear was employed, every
proof was marshaled. The pleadings were closed
on the 29th of May by Mr. Johnson,-Jr. The
whole country felt an interest in the decision, yet
no one doubted the result.

On the 26th of November, 1851, the United
States Circuit Court for the Southern District of
New York caused the decree to be entered, or-
dering to be transferred to the Agents of the
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, their propor-
tion of the property of the New York Book Con-
cern, including both capital and property, and the
Clerk of the Court was instructed to ascertain the
amount and value of the property. Exceptions
were taken to his report, the Court not agreeing
on some points, and the case was certified to the
Supreme Court of the United States for decision.

The suit for a division of the Book Concern in
Cincinnati was brought in the city of Columbus,
M. E. Church, South. 583

in the United States Circuit Court for the District
of Ohio. The Hon. Mr. Stanberry was employed
by the plaintiffs, and Messrs. Badger and Ewing
by the defendants. The Court was presided over
by the Hon. Judge Leavitt, who rendered a de-
cision in favor of the defendants. The Southern
Commissioners appealed from the decision of Judge
Leavitt to the Supreme Court of the United
States. This Court was composed of Chief Jus-
tice Taney, and Associate Justices McLean,*
Wayne, Catron, Daniel, Nelson, Greer, Curtis, and
Campbell. The cause was heard in Washington
City in April, 1854, and was decided in favor of
the M. E. Church, South, without any dissent
from any of the Justices. The opinion of the
Court was delivered by Judge Nelson, April 25,
1854.4

The M. E. Church, South, also claimed an in-
terest in the Chartered Fund, which was located
in Philadelphia, which was paid over to the Agents
without recourse at law.

From these several sources the Methodist Epis-
copal Church, South, received over three hundred
thousand dollars, namely, from the New York Book
Concern, one hundred and ninety-one thousand
dollars; from the Cincinnati Book Concern, ninety-

 

* Judge McLean did not sit in the case.
{See Appendix D, for the Decision of the Court.
584 Organization of the

three thousand dollars; and from the Chartered
Fund, seventeen thousand seven hundred and
twelve dollars and ninety-five cents.

Before we close this chapter, we propose to in-
vite attention to the Methodist Episcopal Church,
South, and briefly to view its position, duty, and
prospects. Forming a new ecclesiastical organiza-
tion, the Southern Methodists published to the
world the grounds on which they had separated
from ‘the Northern Division. They believed that
an impartial tribunal would justify the course they.
had pursued, and that the faithful chronicler of the
history of Methodism would accord to them purity
of purpose. They established no new Church, but
simply brought the Church of which they were
members under a separate jurisdiction, making no
change in doctrines, and taking the same Disci-
pline, changing it only so far as to conform it to
the new organization.

A vast field, already white unto the harvest,
spread out before them, commanding their untiring
energies and earnest devotion.

At the time of the division of the Methodist
Episcopal Church, fifteen Annual Conferences, em-
bracing all the Southern and South-western States,
with the exception of Maryland, and comprising
a membership of 829,057 white and 118,904
colored, making a total of 447,961 persons,
adhered to the fortunes of the M. E. Church,
M. E. Church, South. 585

South. In addition to these, the Indian Mission
Conference, embracing the Cherokee, Choctaw,
Chickasaw, and Creek tribes, occupying a territory
bounded by Kansas on the North, by Texas on the
South, by Arkansas on the East, and on the West
by the grand prairies which stretch away to the
Rocky Mountains, with an aggregate population of
fifty thousand, and a membership of two thousand
nine hundred and seventy-eight, identified them-
selves with the Southern branch of Methodism.
Provision was also made in the General Confer-
ence of 1846 for the establishment of a mission in
China.

These were the fields which, under the blessing
of Heaven, the Methodist Episcopal Church, South,
was pledged to cultivate. The work was vast, and
the responsibility that assumed it was great.

No department of the work of the Christian
ministry has ever been more difficult than the
planting of the gospel of Jesus Christ among the
Indians. They had been so often and so cruelly
wronged by the white man, who traded with their
tribes, that they looked with distrust on the men
who went among them to dispense the word of
life.

If the task of implanting the great truths of
Christianity in the mind of the Indian was difli-
cult, it was not more so than the religious instruc-

tion of the negro was delicate and important. No
25*
586 Organization of the

work was ever intrusted to the Christian ministry
that required greater devotion and skill. Scat-
tered throughout the territory occupied by the M.
E. Church, South, and predominating in numerical
strength in some of the Gulf States, the negro had
peculiar claims on the sympathy of the Church,
South. It ought not to be forgotten that the Meth-
odist ministry were not responsible for the exist-
ence of slavery in the Southern and South-western
States. It antedated Methodism in the South,
and owed its existence there to New England.
Negro slavery was introduced into the colonial
government by Great Britain previous to the
Revolutionary war. Subsequent to that event,
the African slave-trade was carried on, by the en-
terprising Puritan, until the meeting of the Con-
vention in 1789, at which time a Constitution was
secured to the United States Government. Pre-
vious to this period, all the Northern States recog-
nized the right to ownership in slaves, and, with a
single exception, were slave States. During the
Convention, before the Constitution was adopted,
the question of slavery was freely discussed in
that body, and the African slave-trade condemned
in no unmistakable terms. A majority of the
representatives from the Southern States advo-
cated the abolition of the slave-trade at once, as
at war with every feeling of humanity ;. but the
far-seeing Puritans, holding the balance of power in
M. £. Church, South. 587

that body, pleaded and voted for the continuance
of the inhuman practice. They succeeded in their
efforts, and secured the passage of an act author-
izing the continuance of the traffic until 1808.
Language cannot portray the energy displayed by
New England during these nineteen years, in the
prosecution of this work of human misery. Ves-
sel after vessel was fitted up, manned and sent
out on its merciless cruise, and landing on the
coast of Africa, the unsuspecting negro was de-
coyed on board, fettered with irons, subjected to
every cruelty and torture, and in the most heartless
manner was torn from country, and kindred, and
home. The tears, the groans, the agony of these
poor sufferers failed to find one chord of sympa-
thy in the hearts of their cruel captors. The
upturned faces of the suffering negro, pleading for
pity, could find no echo in the bosom of the New
Englander. During all the years allowed for this
unholy traffic to be carried on, their vessels
plowed the seas, burdened with human groans
and laden with human woes. The traffic, how-
ever, brought wealth, and money was their god.
In the meantime it was discovered that slave
labor was not remunerative in the Northern States,
and provision was made by legislative enactments
for the gradual emancipation of the negro. The
cotton States, however, presented’ a market, and
instead of receiving the benefits of emancipation,
588 Organization of the

in too many instances the negro was sold by his
owner into perpetual servitude, who, putting into
his pocket “the price of blood,” walked through
the halls of his palatial home, or reclined in his
cushioned pew in the house of God, and said,
“God, I thank thee, that I am not as other
men!”

These negroes in the South had increased to
millions, and to them the M. E. Church, South,
had a special mission. In the Northern States
no attention had been bestowed on their religious
instruction. Pagans in their native land, under
Puritan tutelage they remained pagans. In the
North they had been subjected to a discipline re-
markably severe, and, under the rigors of cruel
masters, they had droned away an existence
scarcely worth preserving. Without religious in-
struction, they had never been told of a higher
destiny, of an immortality of bliss beyond the
grave. They were simply used to increase the
wealth of their masters, and when no longer prof-
itable to Northern capitalists, they were sold to
the South.

In the South, too, the master, in many places,
had serious apprehensions from the efforts to im-
part religious instruction to his slaves. The
Northern man had so frequently endeavored, under
the guise of a religious teacher, to decoy the slave
from his owner, that the ministers and the gospel
M. E. Church, South. 589

were alike distrusted. To save this unfortunate
race the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, was
specially called.

Methodism occupied a most commanding posi-
tion within the territory of the Southern Organi-
zation. A reference has been made already to a
white membership of more than three hundred
thousand who worshiped at its altars. To care for
these, and to bring others into the fold, belonged
to its mission. At home the field to be occupied
was large and important, while abroad the Celes-
tial Empire was commanding its energies. For
the fidelity with which these trusts have been
guarded, the thousands who have crowded its
altars, many of whom have safely passed over the
“last river,” are its witnesses.
APPENDIX.
Bx:

LIST OF DELEGATES OF THE GENERAL CONFERENCE
OF 1844.

New York Conference.—Nathan Bangs, Stephen Olin, Phineas
Rice, Charles W. Carpenter, George Peck, John B. Stratton, Peter P.
Sandford, Fitch Reed, Samuel D. Ferguson, Stephen Martindale, Mar-
vin Richardson.

Providence Conference.—John Lovejoy, Frederick Upham, Sanford
Benton, Paul Townsend.

New England Conference—James Porter, Dexter 8. King, Phineas
Crandall, Charles Adams, George Pickering.

Maine Conference—Moses Hill, Ezekiel Robinson, Daniel B. Ran-
dall, Charles W. Morse, John Hobart, Heman Nickerson, George
Webber.

New Hampshire Conference—Elihu Scott, Jared Perkins, Samuel
Kelly, Schuyler Chamberlain, John G. Dow, Justin Spaulding, Charles
D. Cahoon, William D. Cass.

Troy Conference—Truman Seymour, John M. Wever, James Covel,
Tobias Spicer, Seymour Coleman, James B. Houghtaling, Jesse T.
Peck.

Black River Conference.—Albert D. Peck, Aaron Adams, Gardner
Baker, W. W. Ninde.

Oneida Conference—John M. Snyder, Silas Comfort, Nelson Rounds,
David A. Shepherd, Henry F. Row, Elias Bowen, David Holmes, Jr.

Genesee Conference.—Glezen Fillmore, Samuel Luckey, Allen
Steele, Freeborn G. Hibbard, Schuyler Seager, Asa Abell, William
Hosmer, John B. Alverson.

Erie Conference.—John J. Steadman, John Bain, George W. Clarke,
John Robinson, Timothy Goodwin.

(591)
592 APPENDIX.

Pittsburgh Conference—William Hunter, Homer J. Clark, John
Spencer, Simon Elliott, Robert Boyd, Samuel Wakefield, James Drum-
mond.

Ohio Conference.—Charles Elliott, William H. Raper, Edmund W.
Sehon, Joseph M. Trimble, James B. Finley, Leonidas L. Hamline,
Zechariah Connell, John Ferree.

North Ohio Conference.— Edward Thompson, John H. Power,
Adam Poe, Elmore Yocum, William Runnells.

Michigan Conference —George Smith, Elijah Crane, Alvan Billings,
John A. Baughman.

Indiana Conference—Matthew Simpson, Allen Wiley, E. R. Ames,
John Miller, Calvin W. Ruter, Aaron Wood, Augustus Eddy, James
Havens.

Rock River Conference—Bartholomew Weed, John Sinclair, Henry
W. Reed, John T. Mitchell.

Lilinois Conference.—Peter Akers, Peter Cartwright, Jonathan
Stamper, John Vancleve, Newton G. Berryman.

Missouri Conference.—William W. Redman, William Patton, Je-
rome C. Berryman, James M. Jameson.

Kentucky Conference—Henry B. Bascom, William Gunn, Hubbard
H. Kavanaugh, Edward Stevenson, Benjamin T. Crouch, George W.
Brush.

Holston Conference-—Elbert F. Sevier, Samuel Patton, Thomas
Stringfield.

Tennessee Conference.—Robert Paine, John B. McFerrin, A. L. P.
Green, Thomas Maddin.

Memphis Conference—George W. D. Harris, Samuel 8. Moody,
Wm. McMahon, Thomas Joyner.

Arkansas Conference—John C. Parker, William P. Ratcliffe, An-
drew Hunter.

Texas Conference.—Littleton Fowler, John Clark.

Mississippi Conference — William Winans, Benjamin M. Drake, John
Lane, Green M. Rogers.

Alabama Conference—Jesse Boring, Jefferson Hamilton, William
Murrah, Greenbury Garrett.

Georgia Conference—George F. Pierce, William J. Parks, Lovick
Pierce, John W. Glenn, James K. Evans, A. B. Longstreet.

South Carolina Conference—William Capers, William M. Wight-
man, Charles Betts, Samuel Dunwody, Hugh A. C. Walker.

North Carolina Conference-—James Jameson, Peter Doub, Bennett
T. Blake.
APPENDIX. 593

Virginia Conference-—John Early, Thomas Crowder, William A.
Smith, Leroy M. Lee.

Baltimore Conference.—Henry Slicer, John A. Collins, John Davis,
Alfred Griffith, John A. Gere, John Bear, Nicholas J. B. Morgan,
Thomas B. Sargent, Charles B. Tippett, George Hildt.

Philadelphia Conference—John P. Durbin, Thomas J. Thompson,
Henry White, Ignatius T. Cooper, Levi Scott, William Cooper.

New Jersey Conference—isaac Winner, John 8. Porter, John K,

baw, Thomas Neal, Thomas Sovereign.
Pe

ACTION OF THE SOUTHERN CONFERENCES IN
REGARD TO THE DIVISION OF THE CHURCH.

KENTUCKY CONFERENCE.

THE committee to whom was referred the subject of the division
of the Church into two separate General Conference jurisdictions and
kindred subjects, have had the same under serious consideration, and
beg leave to report:

That, enlightened as the Conference is presumed to be on the merits
of the very important subject upon which your committee have been
called to act, it was not deemed expedient to delay this report by an
elaborate and argumentative investigation of the matters committed
to them, in their various relations, principles, and bearings; they,
therefore, present the result of their deliberations to the Conference
by offering for adoption the following resolutions:

1. Resolved, That it is the deliberate judgment of this Conference
that the action of the late General Conference, virtually deposing
Bishop Andrew, and also their action in confirming the decision of
the Baltimore Conference, in the case of the Rey. F. A. Harding, are
not sustained by the Discipline of our Church, and that we consider
those proceedings as constituting a highly dangerous precedent.

2. Resolved, That we deeply regret thé prospect of division grow-
ing out of these proceedings, and that we do most sincerely hope and
pray that some effectual means, not inconsistent with the interests
and honor of all concerned, may be suggested and devised by which
so great a calamity may be averted, and to this end we recommend
that our societies be freely consulted on the subject.

3. Resolved, That we approve the holding of a Convention of
delegates from the Conferences in the slaveholding States, in the city

(594)
APPENDIX. 595

of Louisville, on the first day of May next, agreeably to the recom-
mendation of the Southern and South-western delegates in the late
General Conference; and that the ratio of representation proposed
by said delegates—to wit, one delegate for every eleven members of
Conference—be, and the same is hereby, adopted; and that this Confer-
ence will elect delegates to the proposed Convention upon said basis.

4. Resolved, That should a division be found to be indispensable,
the delegates of this Conference are hereby required to act under the
following instructions, to wit: that the Southern and South-western
Conferences shall not be regarded as a secession from the Methodist
Episcopal Church, but that they shall be recognized in law, and to
all intents and purposes, as a ¢codrdinate branch of the Methodist
Episcopal Church in the United States of America, simply acting
under a separate jurisdiction. And farther, that being well satisfied
with the Discipline of the Church as it is, this Conference instruct its
delegates not to support or favor any change in said Discipline by
said Convention.

5. Resolved, That unless we can be assured that the rights of our
ministry and membership can be effectually secured according to Dis-
cipline, against future aggressions, and reparation be made for past
injury, we shall deem the contemplated division unavoidable.

6. Resolved, That we approve the course of our delegates in the
late General Conference in the premises, and that we tender them our
thanks for their faithful and independent discharge of duty in a try-
ing crisis.

7. Resolved, That the Secretary of this Conference be directed to
have these resolutions published in such of our Church-papers as may
be willing to insert them.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

M. M. Henxue, Chairman.

FARTHER ACTION IN REFERENCE TO THE CONTEMPLATED CONVENTION.

Resolved, by the Kentucky Annual Conference, That should the
proposed Convention, representing the Annual Conferences of the
Methodist Episcopal Church in the slaveholding States, appointed to
assemble in the city of Louisville, the first of May, 1845, proceed tc
a separate organization, as contingently provided for in the resolu-
tions of this body on yesterday, then, and in that event, the Conven-
tion shall be regarded as the regular General Conference, authorized
and appointed by the several Annual Conferences of the Southern
division of the Church, and as possessing all the rights, powers, and
596 APPENDIX.

privileges of the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal
Church in the United States, and subject to the same restrictions,
limitations, and restraints,

Resolved, That in order to secure the constitutional character and
action of the Convention as a General Conference proper, should a
separate organization take place, the ratio of representation as now
found in the second restrictive rule, one for every twenty-one, shall
prevail and determine the number of constitutional delegates, taking
and accrediting as such the proper number from each Annual Con-
ference first elected in order, and that the supernumerary delegates
be regarded as members of the Convention to deliberate, etc., but not
members of the General Conference proper, should the Convention
proceed to a separate organization in the South. Provided, neverthe-
less, that should any delegate or delegates, who would not be excluded
from the General Conference proper, by the operation of the above
regulation be absent, then any delegate or delegates present, not
admitted by said regulation as member or members of the constitu-
tional General Conference, may lawfully take the seat or seats of such
absent delegates, upon the principle of the selection named above.

Resolved, by the Kentucky Annual Conference, That we respectfully
invite the Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church, who may feel
themselves disposed to do so, to be in attendance at the contemplated
Convention, to be held in the city of Louisville, Ky., in May, 1845.

Resolved, by the Kentucky Annual Conference, That we appoint the
Friday immediately preceding the day fixed for the meeting of the
proposed General Convention of the delegates of the Conferences, as
a day of fasting and prayer for the blessing of Almighty God on the
said Convention.

MISSOURI CONFERENCE.

The committee to whom was referred the subject of a division of
the Church into two separate General Conference jurisdictions,
together with the causes and circumstances connected with the same,
have bestowed upon it, in the most prayerful and religious manner,
all the time and attention they could command for the purpose, and
beg leave to present the following as their report:

That, inasmuch as the Conference is presumed to be well informed
on the merits of the very important subject upon which the commit-
tee has been called to act, it was not deemed necessary to delay this
report by an extended and argumentative investigation of the mat-
APPENDIX. 597

ters committed to them, in their various relations, principles, and
bearings; they would, therefore, present the result of their delibera-
tions to the Conference by offering for adoption the following resolu-
tions:

Resolved, That we have looked for many years with painful appre-
hension and disapproval upon the agitation of the slavery and abo-
lition subject in our General Conference, and now behold with sorrow
and regret the disastrous results which it has brought about.

Resolved, That while we accord to the great majority of our North-
ern brethren the utmost purity of intention, and while we would
carefully refrain from all harsh denunciations, we are compelled to
pronounce the proceedings of the late General Conference against
Bishop Andrew extrajudicial and oppressive.

Resolved, That we deeply regret the prospect of separation grow-
ing out of these proceedings, and that we do most sincerely hope and
pray that some effectual means, not inconsistent with the interests and
honor of all concerned, may be suggested and devised by which so
great a calamity may be averted; and to this end we recommend that
our societies be freely consulted on this subject.

Resolved, That we approve the holding of a Convention of dele-
gates from the Conferences in the slaveholding States, in the city of
Louisville, Ky., on the first day of May next, agreeably to the recom-
mendation of the delegates from the Southern and South-western
Conferences, in the late General Conference; and that the ratio of
representation proposed by said delegates—to wit, one delegate for
every eleven merabers of the Conference—be, and the same is hereby,
adopted ; and that this Conference will elect delegates to the proposed
Convention upon said basis.

Resolved, That our delegates act under the following instructions,
to wit: to oppose the division of the Church, unless such division,
under all the circumstances of the case, be found to be indispensable
(and consequently unavoidable); and should such necessity be found
to exist, and the division be determined on, then and in that event,
that the Southern and South-western Conferences shall not be regarded
as a secession from the Methodist Episcopal Church, but that they
shall be recognized in law, and to all intents and purposes, as a codr-
dinate branch of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United
States of America, simply acting under a separate jurisdiction. And
farther, that being well satisfied with the Discipline of the Church
as it is, this Conference instruct its delegates not to support or favor
any change in said Discipline by said Convention.
598 APPENDIX.

Resolved, That unless we can be assured that the rights of our min-
istry and membership can be effectually secured according to the
Discipline, against future aggressions, we shall deem the contem-
plated division as unavoidable.

Resolved, That should the proposed Convention, representing the
Annual Conferences of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the slave-
holding States, appointed to assemble at the city of Louisville, Ky.,
the first of May, 1845, proceed to a separate organization, as contin-
gently provided for in the foregoing resolutions, then, in that event,
the Convention shall be regarded as the regular General Conference,
authorized and appointed by the several Annual Conferences of the
Southern division of the Church, and as possessing all the rights,
powers, and privileges of the General Conference of the Methodist
Episcopal Church in the United States of America, and subject to the
same restrictions, limitations, and restraints.

Resolved, That in order to secure the constitutional character and
action of the Convention as a General Conference proper, should a
separate organization take place, the ratio of representation as now
found in the second restrictive rule, one for every twenty-one, shall
prevail and determine the constitutional delegates, taking and accred-
iting as such the proper number from each Annual Conference, first
elected in order, and that the supernumerary delegates be regarded
as members of the Convention to deliberate, but not members of the
General Conference proper, should the Convention proceed to a sepa-
rate organization in the South. Provided, nevertheless, that should
any delegate or delegates who would not be excluded from the Gen-
eral Conference proper, by the operation of the above regulation, be
absent, then any delegate or delegates present, not admitted by said
regulations as a member or members of the constitutional General
Conference, may lawfully take the seat or seats of such absent dele-
gates, upon the principle of selection named above.

Resolved, That we have read with deep regret the violent proceed-
ings of some of our Southern brethren, in their primary meetings,
against some of our Bishops and others; and that we do most cor-
dially invite to our pulpits and firesides all our Bishops and Northern
brethren who, in the event of a division, shall belong to the North-
ern Methodist Episcopal Church.

Resolved, That the preachers shall take up public collections in all
their circuits and stations, some time before the first day of March
next, for the purpose of defraying the expenses of the delegates to
the above-named Convention, and pay over the same to the dele-
APPENDIX. 599

gates, or the respective Presiding Elders, so that the delegates may
receive the same before starting to the Convention.

Ww. Patron, E. PErxiys,

Anprew Monrogz, T. W. CHANDLER,

J. Boyug, Jas. G. T. DunLEavy, i
W. W. Repay, Joun THATCHER, i

JoHN GLANNVILLE,

The following resolutions were offered, and immediately adopted
by the Conference:

Resolved, That we approve the course of our delegates in their
action at the late General Conference, in the case of Bishop Andrew,
and the part they took in the subsequent acts of the Southern dele-
gates, growing out of the proceedings of the majority, and they are
hereby entitled to our hearty thanks for their manly course in a
trying crisis.

Resolved, That we invite the Bishops of our Church, who may feel
free to do so, and they are hereby invited, to attend the contem-
plated Convention at Louisville, Ky. J. H. Liny,

R. Boyp.

HOLSTON CONFERENCE.

The committee to whom was referred the subject of Church-separa-
tion and other matters connected therewith, would respectfully sub-
mit the following report :

In common with our brethren all over our widely-extended Zion, our
hearts are exceedingly pained at the prospect of disunion, growing
out of the action of the late General Conference in the case of Bishop
Andrew. Your committee believe this action to be extrajudicial,
and forming a highly dangerous precedent, The aspect of affairs at
the close of the General Conference was indeed gloomy; and while
we have sought for light from every possible source, we cannot be-
lieve that our Church-papers are the true exponents of the views and
feelings of the whole South, or of the whole North. We would re-
spect the opinions of our brethren everywhere, but we feel that we
shall not be doing justice to ourselves, the Church, or the world, if
we do not express independently and in the fear of God, our own
sentiments on this important subject. We are not prepared to see
the Church of our love and choice, which has been so signally blessed
of God, and cherished by the tears, prayers, and untiring efforts of
our fathers, lacerated and torn asunder, without one more effort to
bind up and heal her blecding wounds; therefore,
600 APPENDIX.

Resolved, That we approve of the proposed Convention to be holden
at Louisville, Ky., May 1st, 1845; and will elect delegates to said
Convention, according to the ratio agreed upon at the last General
Conference by the Southern delegates.

Resolved, That the Conferences in the non-slaveholding States and
Territories be, and they are hereby respectfully requested to elect one
delegate from each Annual Conference (either in Conference capacity
or by the Presiding Elders), to meet with one delegate from each of
the slaveholding Conferences, in the city of Louisville, Ky., on the
first day of May, 1845, to devise some plan of compromise. And in
the event that the non-slaveholding Conferences, or any number of
them, which, with the slaveholding Conferences, shall make a re-
spectable majority of all the Annual Conferences, shall so elect dele-
gates; then, and in that case, the delegates which we will elect from
this Conference to the Louisville Convention, shall appoint one of
their number on said Committee of Compromise. And the Sothern
and South-western Conferences are respectfully requested to agree to
and act upon this plan.

Resolved, That if nothing can be effected on the foregoing plan,
then the delegates from this Conference are instructed to propose to
the Louisville Convention the following or some similar plan, as the
basis of connection between the two General Conferences, proposed
in case of separate organization: The said General Conferences shall
appoint an equal number of delegates (say ten), who shall meet to-
gether in the interim of the General Conferences, to whom shall be
referred for adjustment all matters of difference between the two
General Conferences, or those Churches over which they exercise
jurisdiction, their decisions or propositions for adjustment to be re-
ferred for ultimate action to the General Conferences before men-
tioned ; and when both General Conferences have confirmed their de-
cision, it shall be final and binding on both parties.

Resolved, That if both the foregoing propositions should fail, then
the delegates from this Conference are instructed to support the Plan
of Separation proposed by the late General Conference. And in so
doing, we positively disavow secession, but declare ourselves, by the
act of the General Conference, a codrdinate branch of the Methodist
Episcopal Church. And in the event of either the second or third
proposition obtaining, the delegates from this Conference are in-
structed not to favor any—even the least—alteration of our excellent
Book of Discipline, except in so far as may be necessary to form a
separate organization.
APPENBIX, 601

Resolved, That our delegates to the late General Conference merit
the warmest expression of our thanks, for their prudent, yet firm,
course in sustaining the interests of our beloved Methodism in the
South.

Resolved, That we warmly commend the truly Christian and im-
partial course of our Bishops at the late General Conference, and we
affectionately invite all our Superintendents to attend the Convention
to be holden at Louisville, Ky.

All which is respectfully submitted, T. K. Carzerr,
T. Sunirns, A. H. Matass,
E. E. Witey, Davip FLemine,
C. Furtoy, R. M. Stevens,
Jas. CUMMING, O. F, Cunninauam.

 

TENNESSEE CONFERENCE,

The committee to whom was referred the proposed division of
the Methodist Episcopal Church into two separate and distinct Gen-
eral Conference jurisdictions, and kindred subjects, having had the
same under mature consideration, beg leave to submit the follow-
ing:

Apprised, as we are, that the actions of the late General Confer-
ence, together with the entire merits of the proceedings of that body,
leading to the contemplated separation of the Church, have been
fully and fairly presented to our people, and that both the ministry
and membership within our bounds have, with great solicitude and
prayerful anxiety, investigated the subject in its various relations,
principles, and bearings, we deem it entirely inexpedient at present
to enter into detail or to prepare an elaborate investigation of the
very important matters committed to us; therefore your committee
present the result of their deliberations to the Conference by the
offering for your consideration and adoption the following resolu-
tions:

1. Resolved, That it is the candid and deliberate judgment of this
Conference that the action of the late General Conference, by which
Bishop Andrew was virtually deposed, as well as their action in con-
firming the decision of the Baltimore Conference in the case of the
Rev. F. A. Harding, is not sustained vy the Discipline of our Church,
and that we consider such extrajudicial proceeding as constituting a
highly dangerous precedent.

2. That under the great affliction caused by these unfortunate pro-

26
602 APPENDIX.

ceedings, we did most ardently hope and pray that the calamitous
consequences might have been averted. But since the only plausible
plan of reconciliation, the proposition unanimously recommended
by our beloved Superintendents, was put down by the majority in
the late General Conference, we honestly confess we see at present no
prospect to avoid a separation.

3. That we approve the holding a Convention of delegates from all
the Conferences in the slaveholding States, in the city of Louisville,
on the first day of May next, agreeably to the recommendation of
the Southern and South-western delegates in the late General Con-
ference; and that the ratio of representation proposed by said dele-
gates—to wit, one delegate for every eleven members of Conference
—be, and the same is hereby adopted; and this Conference will elect
delegates to the proposed Convention upon said basis.

4. That should a division be found to be indispensable, the dele-
gates of this Conference are required to act under the following in-
struction, to wit: that the Southern and South-western Conferences
shall not be regarded as a secession from the Methodist Episcopal
Church, but that they shall be recognized in law, and to all intents
and purposes, as a codrdinate branch of the Methodist Episcopal
Church in the United States of America, simply acting under a sep-
arate jurisdiction. And farthermore, as we are well satisfied with
the Discipline of our Church as it is, this Conference instruct its dele-
gates not to support or favor any change in said Discipline by said
Convention, except in so far as may be necessary to conform it in its
economical arrangements to the new organization.

5. That unless we can be well assured that the rights of our min-
istry and membership can be effectually secured according to Disci-
pline against future aggression, and full reparation be made for past
injury, we shall deem the contemplated division unavoidable.

6. That should the proposed Convention, representing the Annual
Conferences of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the slaveholding
States, appointed to assemble in the city of Louisville, the first of
May next, proceed to a separate organization, as contingently pro-
vided for in the foregoing resolutions, then and in that event the
Convention shall be regarded as the regular General Conference, au-
thorized and appointed by the several Annual Conferences of the
Southern division of the Church in the United States, and as possess-
ing all the rights and privileges of the General Conference of the
Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States of America, and
subject to the same constitutional limitations and restrictions.
APPENDIX. 603

7. That in order to secure the constitutional character and action
of the Convention, as a General Conference proper, should a separate
organization take place, the ratio of representation, as now found in
the second restrictive rule, one for every twenty-one, shall prevail
and determine the number of constitutional delegates, taking and ac-
crediting as such the proper number from the Annual Conference
first elected in order; and that the supernumerary delegates be re-
garded as members of the Convention to deliberate, but not members
of the General Conference proper, should the Convention proceed to
a separate organization in the South. Provided, nevertheless, that
should any delegate or delegates, who would not be excluded from
the General Conference proper, by the operation of the above regu-
lation, be absent, then any delegate or delegates present, not ad-
mitted by said regulation as member or members of the constitutional
General Conference, may lawfully take the seat or seats of such ab-
sent delegates, upon the principle of selection named above.

8. That we do most cordially approve the course of our delegates
in the late General Conference, in the premises, and that we tender
them our sincere thanks for their faithful and independent discharge
of duty in a trying crisis.

9. That the Secretary of this Conference be directed to have the
foregoing preamble and resolutions published in the South-western
Christian Advocate.

All which is respectfully submitted, F. E. Pirts,
JosHuA BoucHeEr, F. G. Fercuson,
G. W. Dyes, P. P. NEEty,
W. D. F. Sawris, Jno. W. Hanyer,
A. F. Drisx14t, R. L. ANDREWS.

 

MEMPHIS CONFERENCE.

The committee to whom was referred the subject of the division of
the Church into two separate General Conference jurisdictions, and
all matters connected therewith, after solemnly and prayerfully de-
liberating upon the same, present the following report. Inasmuch
as the Conference is presumed to be well informed on the merits of
the subject, we deem it unnecessary to consume time by entering into
an extended and argumentative investigation of the various rela-
tions, principles, and bearings of the same, but proceed at once to
offer the following resolutions for the action of the Conference.

Resolved, 1. That it is the deliberate judgment of this Conference,
that the action of the late General Conference of the Methodist
604 APPENDIX.

Episcopal Church, virtually deposing Bishop Andrew, and also their
action in affirming the decision of the Baltimore Annual Conference
in the case of the Rey. F. A. Harding, are not sustained by the Dis-
cipline of our Church, and that we consider these proceedings as con-
stituting a highly dangerous precedent.

2. That we deeply regret the prospect of division growing out of
these proceedings, and do most sincerely and devoutly pray to the
great Head of the Church that some effectual means, not inconsistent
with the interests of the cause of Christ, or the honor of all con-
cerned, may be suggested and devised, by which so great a calamity
may be averted, and our long-cherished union preserved and perpet-
uated.

3. That we approve the holding 4 Convention of delegates from
the Conferences in the slaveholding States, in the city of Louis-
ville, Ky., on the first day of May next, agreeably to the recom-
mendation of the Southern and South-western delegates in the
late General Conference; and that the ratio of representation pro-
posed by said delegates—to wit, one delegate for every eleven mem-
bers of Conference—be, and the same is hereby adopted; and that
this Conference will elect delegates to the proposed Convention on
said basis.

4. That should a division be found to be indispensable, the dele-
gates of this Conference are hereby required to act under the follow-
ing instructions, to wit: That the Southern and South-western Con-
ferences shall not be regarded as having, by such division, seceded
from the Methodist Episcopal Church; but they shall be recognized
in law, and to all intents and purposes, as a codrdinate branch of the
Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States of America, simply
acting under a separate jurisdiction. And farther, that being well
satisfied with the Discipline of the Church as it now is, this Confer-
ence instructs its delegates not to support or favor any change in
said Discipline, by said Convention, only so far as necessary to per-
fect a Southern Organization.

5. That unless we can be assured that the rights of our ministry
and membership will be effectually secured, according to Discipline,
against future aggressions, and full reparation be made for past in-
jury, we shall deem the contemplated division unavoidable.

6. That should the proposed Convention, representing the Annual
Conferences of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the slaveholding
States, appointed to assemble at the city of Louisville, on the first
day of May, 1845, proceed to a separate organization, as contingently
o

APPENDIX. 605

provided for in the foregoing resolutions; then, and in that event,
the Convention shall be regarded as the regular General Conference,
authorized and appointed by the several Annual Conferences of the
Southern division of the Church, and as possessing all the rights,
powers, and privileges of the General Conference of the Methodist
Episcopal Church in the United States of America, and subject to
the same restrictions, limitations, and restraints.

7. That in order to secure the constitutional character and action
of the Convention as a General Conference proper, should a separate
organization take place, the ratio of representation, as it now stands
in the second restrictive rule, one for every twenty-one, shall prevail
and determine the constitutional delegates, taking as such the proper
number from each Annual Conference, first elected in order, and that
the remaining delegates be regarded as members of the Convention
to deliberate, but not members of the General Conference proper,
should the Convention proceed to a separate organization in the
South. Provided, nevertheless, that should any delegate or delegates
who would not be excluded from the General Conference proper, by
the operation of the foregoing regulation, be absent, then, any dele-
gate or delegates present, not admitted by said regulation as 2 mem-
ber or members of the constitutional General Conference, may law-
fully take the seat or seats of such absent delegates upon the princi-
ples of selection before named.

8. That we have witnessed with sorrow and disapprobation alike,
the violence manifested by some at the South, and the ultraism dis-
played by others at the North, and that we regret exceedingly that
any Annual Conference should have deemed it necessary to refuse to
concur in the recommendation of the late General Conference to alter
the sixth restrictive article; nevertheless, we shall entertain for our
brethren of the North the feelings of Christian kindness and broth-
erly love.

9. That we heartily approve the entire course pursued by our dele-
gates at the late General Conference.

10. That we cordially invite such of our Bishops, as may deem
it proper, to be present at the contemplated Convention in Louis-
ville.

11. That it be made the duty of each preacher to take up a public
collection in every congregation under his charge, for the purpose of
defraying the expenses of the delegates to the Convention, and that
such collections be taken up previous to the first Sabbath in April
next, and immediately transmitted to some one of the delegates,
e

606 APPENDIX.

And that the delegates be required to report to the next Annual Con-
ference the sums received by them for this purpose, together with the
amount expended by them in attending said Convention.

12. That the Secretary of this Conference be instructed to forward
the foregoing to the South-western Christian Advocate for publica-
tion, with a request that all other Church-papers copy.

Mosss Brocx, JosEPH TRAVIS,
THomAs SMITH, M. J. Buackwett,
J. T, BASKERVILLE, D. J. ALLEN,

B. H. Husparp, Wittiam Prarson,

A. T. Sorvaes,

 

MISSISSIPPI CONFERENCE.

The committee to whom was referred the subject of the contem-
plated division of the Methodist Episcopal Church, have endeavored
to examine the subject carefully, and in a spirit of reliance upon
the teachings of the word of God for direction.

Your committee can but deplore the existence of such causes as
compel the Church of our choice to meditate a severance of that
union which has so long existed, and which, under God, has con-
tributed so efficiently to the spread of scriptural holiness through these
lands. But we are fully convinced that justice to ourselves, as well
as compassion for the slaves, demand an unquélified disapproval of
the action of the late General Conference; first, in confirming the de-
cision of the Baltimore Conference in the case of Rey. F. A. Hard-
ing; and secondly, in virtually suspending Bishop Andrew from the
Episcopacy, not only without law or usage, but in direct contraven-
tion of all law, and in defiance of a resolution adopted by the Gen-
eral Conference of 1840, which provides ‘that under the provisional
exception of the general rule of the Church on the subject of slavery,
the simple holding of slaves, or mere ownership of slave-property,
in the States or Territories where the laws do not admit of emanci-
pation and permit the liberated slave to enjoy freedom, constitutes
no legal barrier to the election or ordination of ministers to the va-
rious grades of office known in the ministry of the Methodist Epis-
copal Church, and cannot, therefore, be considered as operating any
forfeiture of right in view of such election and ordination.”

With the abstract question of slavery we are not now concerned,
nor do we regard it as a subject on which the Church has a right to
legislate; neither are we disposed in this report to state the full ex-
APPENDIX. 607

tent of our grievances, or to investigate the reasons which impose
upon us the necessity of planning an amicable separation. Your
committee deeply regret the injury which may be inflicted upon our
beloved Zion by the intemperate and unjust denunciation of the whole
North by those who have occasion to complain of the illegal and op-
pressive course pursued by the majority of the late General Confer-
ence, and most earnestly recommend the exercise of that charity
which “ suffereth long and is kind.” As the result of our prayerful
examination of the subject in all its bearings, we offer the following
resolutions for your consideration and adoption:

Resolved, 1. That the decision of the late General Conference in
the cases of Rev. F. A. Harding and Bishop Andrew, was unauthor-
ized by the Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and that
a tame submission to them, upon the part of the Church in the slave-
holding States, would prevent our access to the slaves, and expose us
to suspicions destructive to our general usefulness,

Resolved, 2. That as no authorized plan of compromise has been
suggested by the North, and as all the propositions made by the
Southern delegates were rejected, we regard a separation as inevita-
ble, and approve the holding of a Convention, to meet in Louisville,
Ky., on the first day of May next, agreeably to the recommendation
of the Southern and South-western delegates to the late General
Conference; and that the ratio of representation proposed by said
delegates—to wit, one delegate for every eleven members of the An-
nual Conferences—be, and the same is hereby adopted; and that this
Conference-will elect delegates to the proposed Convention upon said
basis. Provided, however, that if, in the providence of God, any plan
of compromise which, in the judgment of our delegates, will redress
our grievances and effectually secure to us the full exercise and peace-
able enjoyment of all our Disciplinary rights should be proposed in
time to prevent disunion, we will joyfully embrace it.

Resolved, 3. That our delegates to said Convention shall be em-
powered to codperate with the delegates to said Convention from the
other Conferences, in adopting such measures as they shall deem nec-
essary for the complete organization of a Southern Church, provided
that it conform in all its essential features to the Discipline of the
Methodist Episcopal Church.

Resolved, 4. That the course pursued by our immediate representa-
tives in the late General Conference, was and is approved by us.

Resolved, 5. That the conciliatory spirit evinced by our General
Superintendents entitles them to the unqualified approbation of the
608 APPENDIX.

whole Church, and that we do most cordially invite them to attend
the proposed Convention.
All of which is respectfully submitted, D. O. Szarruck,
Wu. H. Warxrns, Jno. G. Jones,
. B. Pipkin, L. CAMPBELL,
Jno. N. HAMILy, A. T. M. Fry,
Davip M. Wiceins, W. G. Goup.

 

ARKANSAS CONFERENCE.

The committee to whom was referred the several subjects connected
with the prospective division of the Methodist Episcopal Church,
have had the same under calm and prayerful consideration, and beg
leave to present the following as the result of their honest delibera-
tions :

Being well convinced that the members of this body have not been
inattentive to the proceedings of the late General Conference, and
that they have not failed to derive some information from the nu-
merous addresses and communications that have appeared in our pe-
riodicals, your committee have not been disposed to waste their time,
nor insult your judgments, by detailing the many circumstances
which, were you differently situated, would require amplification;
they, therefore, present to your minds, for consideration and action,
the subjoined resolutions:

1. Resolved, That it is the decided opinion of this Conference that
the Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church does not sustain
the action of the late General Conference in the cases of Rev. F. A.
Harding and Bishop Andrew.

2. Resolved, That we approve the suggestions of the Bishops, as
well as the request of several Southern delegates, which contemplated
the postponing of the action of the General Conference, until the
wishes of the whole Church could be consulted.

38. Resolved, That, as we see no probability that reparation will be
made for past injuries, and no security given that the rights and
privileges of the ministry and membership in the slaveholding Con-
ferences will be equally respected, we believe it is the imperative
duty, if not the only alternative, of the South to form a separate or-
ganization. Nevertheless, should honorable and satisfactory propo-
sitions for pacification be made by the North, we shall expect our
delegates to favor the perpetuation of the union.

4, Resolved, That we approve the holding of a Convention of dele-
gates from the Conferences in the slaveholding States, in the city of
APPENDIX. 609

Louisville, Ky., on the first day of May, 1845, agreeably to the rec-
ommendation of the delegates from the Southern and South-western
Conferences in the late General Conference.

5. Resolved, That should the proposed Convention, representing the
Methodist Episcopal Church in the slaveholding States, appointed to
assemble at Louisville, Ky., the first day of May, 1845, proceed to a
separate organization, as contingently provided for in the foregoing
resolutions, then, in that event, the Convention shall be regarded as
the regular General Conference, authorized and appointed by the
several Annual Conferences in the Southern division of the Church,
and as possessing all the rights, powers, and privileges of the Gen-
eral Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United
States of America, and subject to the same restrictions, limitations,
and restraints,

6. Resolved, That in order to secure the constitutional character
and action of the Convention as a General Conference proper, should
« separate organization take place, the ratio of representation, as
now found in the second restrictive rule, one for every twenty-one,
shall prevail and determine the constitutional delegates, taking and
accrediting as such the proper number from each Annual Conference,
first elected in order; and that the supernumerary delegates be re-
garded as members of the Convention to deliberate, but not members
of the General Conference proper, should the Convention proceed to
a separate organization in the South. Prowded, nevertheless, that
should any delegate or delegates, who would not be excluded from
the General Conference proper by the operation of the above regu-
lation, be absent, then any delegate or delegates present, not ad-
mitted by said regulation as a member or members of the constitu-
tional General Conference, may lawfully take the seats of such ab-
sent delegates, upon the principle of selection named above.

7. Resolved, That, as we are well satisfied with the Discipline of
the Methodist Episcopal Church as it is, we hereby instruct our dele-
gates to said Convention not to favor any change therein.

8. Resolved, That, though we feel ourselves aggrieved, and have
been wounded, without cause, in the house of our friends, we have
no disposition to impute wrong motives to the majority in the late
General Conference, and no inclination to indorse those vindictive
proceedings had in some portions of the South, believing it to be the
duty of Christians, under all circumstances, to exercise that charity
which beareth all things.

9, Resolved, That the preachers take up collections on their several

26*
610 APPENDIX.

circuits and stations at an early period, and hand the money col-
lected to their Presiding Elders, that the delegates may receive the
whole amount collected before they shall be required to start for
Louisville.

10. Resolved, That we tender our warmest thanks to our repre-
sentatives in the late General Conference for the stand which they
took, with others, in defense of our disciplinary rights.

' 11. Resolved, That the Bishops generally be, and they hereby are
requested, if it be congenial with their feelings, to attend the Con-
vention at Louisville.

12. Resolved, That we recommend to our people the observance of
the first of May next as a day of humiliation and prayer, that the
divine presence may attend the deliberations of the Convention.

Joun HaRRE.Lt, Fountain Brown,
J.B, Annis, Jaco, CustEr,
ALEXANDER AvERY, J. F. Trustow.

 

VIRGINIA CONFERENCE.

The committee to whom was referred the resolutions of the late
General Conference, recommending to all the Annual Conferences at
their first approaching sessions to authorize a change of the sixth
restrictive article, so that the first clause shall read, ‘ They shall not
appropriate the produce of the Book Concern nor of the Chartered
Fund to any purpose other than the traveling, supernumerary, super-
annuated, and worn-out preachers, their wives, widows, and children,
and to such other purposes as may be determined on by the votes of
two-thirds of the members of the General Conference,” and to whom
was also referred the Address of the Southern delegates in the late
General Conference, recommending a Southern Convention, to be
held in Louisville, Ky., on the first day of May, 1845, together with
the proceedings of various primary and Quarterly Conference meet-
ings within the bounds of the Virginia Conference on the subject of
a separation from the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the General Con-
ference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, beg leave to report :

That, having maturely considered these subjects, they do not deem
it necessary to present an argument upon the various topics submitted
to them; but that the duty assigned them will probably be more sat-
isfactorily accomplished in the following series of resolutions, viz. :

Resolved, 1. That we concur in the recommendation of the late
General Conference to change the sixth restrictive article of the Dis-
cipline of our Church.
APPENDIX. 611

Resolved, 2. That from the ample sources of information before
your committee in numerous primary meetings which have been held
in various charges within our pastoral limits, and the proceedings of
Quarterly-meeting Conferences, which we have the most sufficient
reason to regard as a fair and full exponent of the mind and will of

. the membership upon the subject of the action of the recent General
Conference, and the propriety of division, we are of opinion that it
is the mind of the laity of the Church, with no exception sufficient
to be regarded as the basis of action, that whilst they seriously dep-
recate division, considered relatively, and most earnestly wish that
some ground of permanent union could have been found, they see
no alternative, and therefore approve of a peaceable separation in
the present circumstances of our condition; and in this opinion and
this determination your committee unanimously concur.

Resolved, 3. That we concur in the recommendation of the South-
ern delegates in the late General Conference, that there be a Southern
Convention, to be held in Louisville, Ky., on the first day of May,
1845; and in the objects of this Convention, as is contemplated in the
Address of the Southern delegates.

Resolved, 4, That while we do not propose to dissolve our connec-
tion with the Methodist Episcopal Church, but only with the General
Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, we are, therefore,
entitled to our full portion of all the rights and privileges appertain-
ing to the property of the Church. Nevertheless, our delegates to
the Convention to be held in Louisville, Ky., in May, 1845, are
hereby instructed not to allow the question of property to enter into
the calculation whether or not we shall exist as a separate organiza-
tion.

Resolved, 5. That the action of the late General Conference in the
case of Bishop Andrew was in violation of the provisional rule of
the Discipline on the subject of slavery, and in derogation of the
dignity and authority of the Episcopal office; it was, therefore,
equally opposed to the rights of the Southern portion of the Church,
and of those of the incumbents of the Episcopal office. But more
than this: it was an effort to accomplish, by legislative action, what
it was only competent for them to do, if at all, by regular judicial
process; the very attempt was an acknowledgment that there was no
rule of Discipline under which he could either be deposed or censured,
and that the General Conference, being unrestrained by the authority
of law, was supreme. Thus both the Episcopal office and its incum-
-bents were taken from under the protection of the constitutional
612 APPENDIX.

restriction, and the provisional rule of Discipline, by which it was
made a codrdinate branch of the government, and placed at the
caprice of a majority, which claims that its mere will is the law of
the Church. :

Bishop Andrew, therefore, in refusing to resign his office, or other-
wise yield to this unwarranted assumption of authority on the part
of the General Conference, has taken a noble stand upon the platform
of constitutional law, in defense of the Episcopal office and the rights
of the South, which entitles him to the cordial approbation and sup-
port of every friend of the Church; and we hereby tender him the
unanimous expression of our admiration of his firmness in resisting
the misrule of a popular majority.

Resolved, 6. That we cordially approve the course of the Southern
and South-western delegates of the late General Conference, in resist-
ing with so much constancy and firmness the encroachments of the
majority upon the rights of the South; and for so faithfully warning
them against the tendency of those measures, which we fear do iney-
itably draw after them the dissolution of our ecclesiastical union.

Joun Harty, Tuomas Crowper, JR.,
Wu. A. Situ, ApramM PEny,

Gro. W. Noxiey, Antuony D1srEtt,
H. B. Cowzss, D. 8. Dogger.

Jos. H. Davis,

The recommendation to change the sixth restrictive article was
concurred in—eighty-one in favor, and none against it—and the
whole Report of the committee was unanimously adopted by the
Conference.

 

NORTH CAROLINA CONFERENCE.

The committee to whom the resolution of the late General Confer-
ence respecting the alteration of the sixth restrictive rule, the Report
of the Select Committee of Nine on the Declaration of the Southern
delegates, and the Reports of numerous voluntary meetings, both of
ministers and people, within the bounds of North Carolina Confer-
ence, were referred, beg leave to report:

Your committee deeply regret the division of the Méthodist Epis-
copal Church, which the course of the majority in the late General
Conference renders not only necessary hut inevitable. The unity of
the Church, so long the boast and praise of Methodism, was a fea-
ture greatly admired, and more than esteemed, by Southern Meth-
APPENDIX. 613

odists. For its promotion and preservation they were willing to
surrender any thing but principle—vital principle. Z'his they could
not do! this they dare not do! The course of the late General Con-
ference demanded a submission on the part of the ministers in the
slaveholding Conferences, which the Discipline did not require, and
the institutions of the South absolutely forbade. To have yielded,
therefore, would have opened a breach in Methodism wholly sub-
versive of the Church and greatly mischievous to the civil commu-
nity—to have yielded would have been ruin. This, therefore, they
refused to do; absolutely refused! With the Discipline in their hands,
sustained and upheld by it, they protested against the proceedings of
the majority, with an unfaltering and manly voice, declaring them
to be not only unauthorized, but unconstitutional. The protesta-
tion, however, just and legal as it was, authorized and borne out by
the Discipline, was altogether unavailing. Nothing was left for the
South to do but to pass from under the jurisdiction of so wayward
a power to the regulations and government of our old, wholesome,
and scriptural Discipline. This, we sorrow when we say it, has
opened a great gulf—we fear an impassable gulf—between the North
and the South. This consolation, however, if no other, they have—
the good Book of Discipline, containing the distinctive features of
the Methodist Episcopal Church, shall still lie on the South side.
Compelled by circumstances which could neither be alleviated nor
controlled—which neither the entreaties of kindness nor the force of
truth could successfully resist—we hesitate not to decide on being
forever separate from those whom we not only esteem, but love.
Better far that we should suffer the loss of union, than that thousands
—yea, millions—of souls should perish.

From the reports of Quarterly-meeting Conferences, and numerous
voluntary meetings within the bounds of the North Carolina Con-
ference, both of ministers and people, we feel assured that it is the
mind of our people and preachers fully to sustain the action of the
Southern and South-western delegates, as set forth in the Declaration
and Protest; and therefore,

1. Resolved, That the time has come for the ministers of the Meth-
odist Episcopal Church in the slaveholding States to refuse to act in
union with the North.

2. Resolved, That we concur in the proposed alteration of the sixth
restrictive rule of the Discipline.

3. Resolved, That we concur in the recommendation to hold a
Convention in Louisville, Ky., in May, 1845.
614 APPENDIX.

4. Resolved, That this Conference elect delegates to said Convention
according to the basis of representation recommended.

5. Resolved, That the action of the late General Conference, in the
case of Bishop Andrew, was a violation of the rule of Discipline on
the subject of slavery, and derogatory to the dignity of the Episcopal
office, by throwing it from under the protection of law, and exposing
it to the reproach and obloquy of misrule and lawless power. The
Bishop, therefore, acted justly and honorably in resisting such action
and declining obedience to the resolution of said Conference; and for
thus guarding and respecting the rights of the South, both of minis-
ters and people, he is entitled to our highest regards.

All which is respectfully submitted. H. G. Lerex,
8. 8. Bryant, Jas. JAMESON,
P. Dous, Benner T, BLaxe,
JamEs REID, D. B. Nicuouson,
R. I. Carsow, Wm. Carter.

The above report was unanimously adopted by the Conference.
On the question of concurrence in altering the sixth restrictive rule,
the vote was—ayes 58, nays none.

 

SOUTH CAROLINA CONFERENCE.

The committee to whom was referred the general subject of the
difficulties growing out of the action of the late General Conference
on the case of Bishop Andrew and Brother Harding, and, in particu-
lar, the Report of the Select Committee on the Declaration of the
Southern and South-western delegates of the General Conference, aa
adopted by the Conference, and the proceedings of numerous Quar-
terly Conferences, and other meetings, in all parts of our Annual
Conference District, respectfully offer the following Report:

It appears to your committee, on the evidence of numerous docu-
ments, and the testimony of the preachers in open Conference, that
in all the circuits and stations of this Conference District, the people
have expressed their minds with respect to the action of the General
Conference, and the measures proper to beadopted in consequence
of that action. Resolutions to that effect have been adopted by the
Quarterly Conferences of all the circuits and stations, without any
exception; and in many, perhaps in most of them, by other meetings
also, which have been called expressly for the purpose; and in some
of them, by meetings‘held at every preaching-place where there was
a society. And on all these occasions, there has been but one voice
APPENDIX. 615

uttered—one opinion expressed—from the seaboard to the mountains,
as to the unconstitutionality and injurious character of the action in
the cases above named; the necessity which that action imposes for
a separation of the Southern from the Northern Conferences, and the
expediency and propriety of holding a Convention at Louisville, Ky.,
and of your sending delegates to it, agreeably to the proposition of
the Southern and South-western delegates of the late General Con-
ference.

Your committee also have made diligent inquiry, both out of
Conference and by calling openly in Conference, for information from
the preachers, as to the number, if any, of local preachers, or other
official members, or members of some standing among us, who should
have expressed, in the meetings or in private, a different opinion
from that which the meetings have proclaimed. And the result of
this inquiry has been, that, in the whole field of our Conference Dis-
trict, one individual only has been heard to express himself doubt-
fully as to the expediency of a separate jurisdiction for the Southern
and South-western Conferences; not even one as to the character of
the General Conference action. Nor does it appear that this una-
nimity of the people has been brought about by popular harangues,
or any schismatic efforts of any of the preachers, or other influential
persons; but that it has been as spontaneous as universal, and, from
the time that the final action of the General Conference became
known, at every place. Your committee state this fact thus formally,
that it may correct certain libelous imputations which have been cast
on some of our senior ministers, in the Christian Advocate and Jour-
nal; as well as for the evidence which it furnishes of the necessity
of the measures which are in progress for the relief of the Church in
the South and South-west.

Your committee also consider it due to state, that it does not appear
that the action of the General Conference, in the cases of the Bishop
and of Brother Harding, proceeded of ill-will, as of purpose to
oppress us, nor of any intended disregard of the authority of the
Scriptures or of the Discipline, as if to effect the designs of a politico-
‘religious faction, without warrant of the Scriptures, and against the
Discipline and the peace of the Church; but they consider that
action as having been produced out of causes which had their origin
in the fanatical abolitionism of Garrison and others; and which,
being suffered to enter and agitate the Church, first in New England
and afterward generally at the North, worked up such a revival of
the antislavery spirit as had grown too strong for the restraints of
616 APPENDIX.

either Scripture or Discipline, and too general through the Eastern,
Northern, and North-western Conferences, to be resisted any longer
by the easy, good-natured prudence of the brethren representing
those Conferences in the late General Conference. Pressed beyond
their strength, whether little or much, they had to give way; and,
reduced (by the force of principles which, whether by their own
fault or not, had obtained a controlling power) to the alternative of
breaking up the Churches of their own Conference Districts, or adopt-
ing measures which they might hardly persuade themselves could be
endured by the South and South-west, they determined on the latter.
The best of men may have their judgments perverted; and it is not
wonderful that, under such stress of circumstances, the majority
should have adopted a new construction of both Scripture and Dis-
cipline, and persuaded themselves that in pacifying the abolitionists
they were not unjust to their Southern brethren. Such, however, is
unquestionably the character of the measures they adopted; and
which the Southern Churches cannot possibly submit to, unless the
majority who enacted them could also have brought us to a convic-
tion that we ought to be bound by their judgment, against our con-
sciences and calling of God, and the warrant of Scripture, and the
provisions of the Discipline. But while we believe that our para-
mount duty in our calling of God positively forbids our yielding the
gospel in the Southern States to the pacification of abolitionism in
the Northern—and the conviction is strong and clear in our own
minds that we have both the warrant of Scripture and the plain
provisions of the Discipline to sustain us—we see no room to entertain
ary proposition for compromise, under the late action in the cases
of Bishop Andrew and Brother Harding, and the principles avowed
for the maintenance of that action, short of what has been shadowed
forth in the Report of the Select Committee which we have had under
consideration, and the measures recommended by the Southern and
South-western delegates at their meeting after the General Confer-
ence had closed its session.

Your committee do, therefore, recommend the adoption of the fol-
lowing resolutions:

1. Resolved, That it is necessary for the Annual Conferences in the
slaveholding States and Territories, and in Texas, to unite in a dis-
tinct ecclesiastical connection, agreeably to the provisions of the
Report of the Select Committee of Nine of the late General Confer-
ence, adopted on the 8th day of June last.

2. Resolved, That we consider and esteem the adoption of the Re-
APPENDIX. 617

port of the aforesaid Committee of Nine by the General Conference
(and the more for the unanimity with which it was adopted) as
involving the most solemn pledge which could have been given by
the majority to the minority, and the Churches represented by them,
for the full and faithful execution of all the particulars specified and
intended in that Report.

3. Resolved, That we approve of the recommendation of the South-
ern delegates, to hold a Convention in Louisville, on the first day of
May next, and will elect delegates to the same on the ratio recom-
mended in the Address of the delegates to their constituents.

4. Resolved, That we earnestly request the Bishops, one and all, to
attend the said Convention.

5. Resolved, That while we do not consider the proposed Conven-
tion competent to make any change or changes in the Rules of Dis-
cipline, they may nevertheless indicate what changes, if any, are
deemed necessary under a separate jurisdiction of the Southern and
South-western Conferences, And that it is necessary for the Conven-
tion to resolve on, and provide for, a separate organization of these
Conferences under a General Conference to be constituted and
empowered in all respects for the government of these Conferences, as
the General Conference hitherto has been with respect to all the
Annual Conferences—according to the provisions and intention of
the late General Conference.

6. Resolved, That as, in common with all our brethren of this Con-
ference District, we have deeply sympathized with Bishop Andrew in
his afflictions, and believe him to have been blameless in the matter
for which he has suffered, so, with them, we affectionately assure
him of our approbation of his course, and receive him as not the
less worthy, or less to be honored in his Episcopal character, for the
action which has been had in his case.

7. Resolved, That we recognize in the wisdom and prudence, the
firmness and discretion, exhibited in the course of Bishop Soule,
during the General Conference—as well as in former instances wherein
he has proved his devotion to the great principles of constitutional
right in our Church—nothing more than was to be expected from the
bosom friend of Asbury and McKendree.

8. Resolved, That in common with the whole body of our people,
we approve of the conduct of our delegates, both during the Gen-
eral Conference and subsequently.

9. Resolved, That we concur in the recommendation of the late
General Conference for the change of the sixth article of the restric-
618 APPENDIX.

tive rules in the Book of Discipline, so as to allow an equitable pro

rata division of the Book Concern. W. Capers,
W. Surra, H. Bass,
N. TALuey, H. A. C. Wavker,
C. Betts, 8. W. Capers,
8. Duxwopy, R. J. Boyp.

 

INDIAN MISSION CONFERENCE.

The committee to whom was referred the action of the late Gen-
eral Conference relating to an amicable division of the Methodist
Episcopal Church in the United States, beg leave to report the fol-
lowing resolutions for adoption by the Conference:

1. Resolved, That we concur in the proposed alteration of the sixth
restrictive article of the Discipline.

2. Resolved, That we approve the course pursued by the minority
of the late General Conference.

3. Resolved, That we elect delegates to represent the Indian Mis-
sion Conference in the contemplated Convention to be held in Louis-
ville, Ky., in May next.

4, Resolved, That this Conference do deeply deplore the necessity
for division of any kind in the Methodist Episcopal Church; and
that we will not cease to send up our prayers to Almighty God for
his gracious interposition, and that he may guide the affairs of the
Church to a happy issue. J.C. Berryman, Chairman.

The above report having been read, was taken up section by sec-
tion, and disposed of as follows: The first resolution was adopted—
ayes 14, nays1. The second resolution was adopted—ayes 11, nays
3; declined voting, 4. The third resolution was adopted—ayes 17.
The fourth resolution was adopted—ayes 17. The preamble and
resolutions were then adopted by the Conference as a whole.

The Conference then proceeded, in accordance with the third reso-
lution, to elect delegates to attend the proposed Convention in Louis-
ville, in May next. On counting the votes, it appeared that the
whole number of votes given was twenty-one, of which number
William H. Goode had received twenty, Edward T. Peery eighteen,
scattering four. Whereupon, W. H. Goode and E. T. Peery having
received a majority of all the votes given, were declared duly elected.
D. B. Cumming was then elected reserve delegate.

The following resolutions were on the next day unanimously
adopted at the request of the delegates elect:
APPENDIX. 619

Resolved, That in view of the condition of the Church at the present
trying crisis, the members of this Conference will, when practicable,
as near as may be at the hour of twilight, in the evening of each
day, until the close of the approaching Convention at Louisville,
meet each other at a throne of grace, and devoutly implore the bless-
ing of God upon our assembled delegates in the discharge of their
important duties.

Resolved, That the Friday preceding the opening of said Conven-
tion be set apart as a day of fasting and supplication to Almighty
God for the continued unity, peace, and prosperity of the Methodist
Episcopal Church; and that our members throughout this Conference
be requested to join us in the devotions of that day.

Wm. H. Goopsg,
E. T. Peery. *

 

GEORGIA CONFERENCE.

The committee appointed to take into consideration the difficulties
of the Church as growing out of the action of the General Conference
in the case of Bishop Andrew, and to submit some recommendations
to the Annual Conference for their adoption, beg leave to report:

The action of the majority in the last General Conference of the
Methodist Episcopal Church, in the cases of Bishop Andrew and the
Rev. Mr. Harding, has rendered it indispensable that the Conferences
within whose limits slavery exists should cease to be under the
jurisdiction of that body. They must either abandon the people
collected under their ministry, and committed to their pastoral care,
and the vast and widening field of missionary labor among the slaves—
a field to which their attention is imperatively called by their sym-
pathies as Christians, their sense of ministerial obligation as preachers
of the gospel, and their interests and duties as citizens—or they must

‘live under the control of an ecclesiastical body separate and dis-

tinct from and independent of the Conferences lying within the
States and Territories where slavery is not allowed by law. In view
of the relations before stated, that distinct organization is required
by a necessity strict and absolute, and upon that issue we place it
before the Church and the world. The exigence which brings it upon
us, arose not out of our acts or designs; no collateral considerations
of expedience abated our zeal in withstanding it; no collateral issues
upon points involved affected our determination to maintain the
unity of the Church under one organization as heretofore existing;
620 APPENDIX.

no pride of opinion, speculative differences, nor personal motives
have conducted us to this conclusion.. We did not seek to effect any
changes in the doctrine or discipline of our Church; we did not ask
any boon at the hands of the General Conference, nor any exemption
from the operation of the laws which were common to the whole
Connection; and whatever consequences affecting the Church, or the
civil community, may result from our movement, we confidently look
for acquittal to the judgment of posterity, and the decision of the
sober and unprejudiced among our contemporaries. The General
Conference violated the law of the Church, first, by confirming the
decision of the Baltimore Conference, suspending the Rev. Mr. Hard-
ing from his connection with that Conference as a traveling preacher
therein, because he would not give freedom to slaves, which by the
laws of the land he could not manumit; and secondly, by passing a
resolution intended to inhibit Bishop Andrew from the exercise of
his Episcopal functions for the same reasons; in both cases contrary
to the express provisions of the Discipline, which allow preachers to
hold slaves wherever they are not permitted by the laws of the land
to enjoy freedom when manumitted, and in both cases striking an
effective blow at the fundamental principle of the economy of Meth-
odism, as it destroys that general itinerancy of the preachers which
is its most distinguished peculiarity; for under their decision, preach-
ers holding slaves in Conferences where by the law of the Discipline
they are allowed so to do, may not be transferred to Conferences
within whose limits slavery does not exist. By the same decision,
both preachers and lay-members holding slaves are thrown into an
odious and dishonored caste, the first deprived of office therefor, and
the religious character of both impeached and thrown under suspicion
thereby; to which must be added, as an evil not lightly to be regarded,
nor slightly overlooked, that, in connection with the fanatical move-
ments of abolitionists in the North, East, and West, it is well fitted
to excite slaves to disaffection and rebellion, making it imperative
upon governments and citizens to prohibit all communication between
slaves and preachers who either teach such doctrine or impliedly
admit it to be true by submitting to such dishonor and deprivation.
Secondly. That in the case of Bishop Andrew, the General Confer-
ference have violated the Discipline of the Church and invaded per-
sonal rights, which are secured by the laws of every enlightened
nation, if not by the usages of every savage people on earth. They
tried and sentenced Bishop Andrew without charges preferred, or a
cognizable offense stated. If it is even admitted that they intended
APPENDIX. 621

to charge him with “improper conduct,” as a phrase used in the Dis-
cipline to embrace every class of offenses for which a Bishop is
amenable to the General Conference, and, on conviction, liable to be
expelled, they did not formally prefer that charge; if they intended
to specify his “connection with slavery” as the substantive offense
under that charge, a “connection with slavery” is not a cognizable
offense, under any law of our Church, written or unwritten, statutory
or prescriptive; and the only “connection with slavery” attempted
to be established in his case, is expressly permitted by the Discipline,
in section 10, part ii., on Slavery. If they claimed the right to
declare in their legislative capacity, that ‘such a connection with
slavery ” was an offense in a Bishop, they could only extend it to him
retroactively by ex post facto enactment, and even then it was never pro-
mulgated until the very moment in which they pronounced his sen-
tence by a majority vote. But we cannot admit that the framers of
our Discipline ever intended to subject a Bishop to the monstrous
injustice of being liable to be expelled by the General Conference,
exercising original jurisdiction, for an impropriety short of immoral-
ity or official delinquency, whilst they so cautiously secured his offi-
cial and personal rights in all cases where that body has appellate
cognizance of charges for positive immoralities; and we are confident
that a fair and rational construction of the 4th and 5th questions
and their answers, in the 4th section of the Ist chapter of the Dis-
cipline, will make “improper conduct,” in the answer to the 4th
question, and “immorality,” in the 5th, descriptive of the same class
of offenses in the mind of the law-maker, who could never have
intended to subject that venerable officer to expulsion for offenses so
light that they could not be considered either immoralities or official
delinquencies, and so entirely dependent for their very existence upon
the caprice or varying notions of every General Conference, that they
could not either be classified or designated.

The foregoing views we consider the embodiment of public opin-
ion throughout our Conference. The sentiments of our people in
primary meetings, in Quarterly Conferences, as expressed in the most
solemn forms, sustain the course of our delegation in the General
Conference, and approve, and even demand, an organization which
shall transfer the slaveholding Conferences from the jurisdiction of
the North. The unanimity of the people we verily believe to be
without a parallel in the history of Church action, and therefore feel
ourselves perfectly justified in recommending to your body the adop-
tion of the following resolutions, viz. :
622 APPENDIX,

1. Resolved, That we will elect delegates to the Convention to be
held in Louisville, Ky., on the Ist of May next, upon the basis of
representation proposed and acted on by the other Conferences—viz.,
one delegate for every eleven members of our Conference.

2. Resolved, That our delegates be instructed to codperate with the
delegates from other Southern and South-western Conferences, who
shall be represented in the Convention, in effecting the organization
of a General Conference, which shall embrace those Annual Confer-
ences, and in making all necessary arrangements for its going into
operation, as soon as the acts of the said Convention shall have been
reported by the several delegations to their constituents, and accepted
by them, according to such arrangements as may be made by the
Convention for carrying the same into effect.

3. Resolved, That our delegates be instructed to use all prudent
precautions to secure that portion of the Book Concern and Chartered
Fund of the Methodist Episcopal Church to which the Annual Con-
ferences represented in the Convention shall be unitedly entitled, and
all the property to which the several Annual Conferences are entitled,
to them severally, and that to this end they be requested to obtain
the written opinions of one or more eminent lawyers; but that, in the
event they must either abandon the property or remain under the
jurisdiction of the. General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal
Church, constituted as it now is, they be left to the exercise of a
sound discretion in the premises.

4. Resolved, That our delegates make a report to this body at its
next session, of all their acts and doings in the aforesaid Convention,
and this body shall not be bound by any arrangements therein made,
until after it shall have accepted and approved them in Conference
assembled.

5. Resolved, That our delegates be, and they are hereby instructed not
to agree to any alterations in the Discipline of the Methodist Episco-
pal Church, but that the Discipline adopted under the new organiza-
tion shall be that known and recognized as the Discipline of the Meth-
odist Episcopal Church in the United States, with such modifications
only as are necessary formally to adapt it to the new organization.

6. Resolved, That we consider ourselves as an integral part of the
Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States, and that we have
done no act, nor do we authorize any act to be done in our name, by
which our title to be so considered shall be forfeited, unless in the
event contemplated in the last clause of the third resolution it becomes
necessary so to do.
APPENDIX. 623

7. Resolved, That we highly appreciate the devotion of our venera-
ble senior Bishop to the Constitution and Discipline of the Church,
and his uncompromising firmness in maintaining both the one and
the other, and hereby assure him of our increased confidence and
affection.

8. Resolved, That our beloved Bishop Andrew has endeared him-
self to the preachers and people of the Southern Church, by resisting
the constitutional dictation of the majority of the late General Confer-
ence, and that we cordially approve his whole action in the case aud
welcome him to the unrestricted exercise of his Episcopal functions
among us.

9. Resolved, That the course of our delgates in the trying circum-
stances by which they were surrounded during the last session of the
General Conference, meets our entire approbation.

10. Resolved, That we concur in the alteration of the sixth restric-
tive rule, as recommended by the resolution of the General Confer-
ence.

11. Resolved, That we do not concur with the Holston Conference
in the resolution proposed by them, regarding it as tending only to
embarrass the action of the Convention, without the slightest promise
of good to either division of the Church.

L. Pierce, THomas SAMForp,
SAMUEL ANTHONY, Ianatius A. Frew,
Gzo, F. Pierce, Isaac Borina,
W. D. MarrHews, Joun W. TALey,
JostaH Lewis, J.B. Payne.

 

FLORIDA CONFERENCE.

The committee to whom was referred the subject of the action of
the late General Conference in the cases of Bishop Andrew and F. A.
Harding—also the Report of the Committee of Nine in the late Gen-
eral Conference on the subject of a peaceable separation of the
Church—also the resolution of the Holston Conference on the same
subject—submit the following resolutions, to wit:

1. Resolved, That we disapprove of the course of the late General
Conference in the cases of Bishop Andrew and F. A. Harding.

2. That we heartily approve the proposed Plan of Separation as
adopted by the General Conference, under which the Southern and
South-western Conferences are authorized to unite in a distinct eccle-
siastical connection.
624 APPENDIX, |

3. That we are satisfied that the peace and success of the Church in
the South demand a separate and distinct organization.

4. That we commend and admire the firm and manly course pur-
sued by Bishop Andrew under the trials he has had to encounter,
and that we still regard him as possessing all his Episcopal functions.

5. That the course pursued by our venerable senior Superintendent,
Bishop Soule, in defending the Discipline of our Church, bas served
but to endear him to us more and more, and we heartily approve
his course in inviting Bishop Andrew to assist him in his Episcopal
visitations.

6. That we tender our warmest thanks to all those brethren who
voted in the minority in Bishop Andrew’s case.

7. That we approve of the proposed Convention to be held in
Louisville the Ist of May next, and will proceed to elect delegates
to said Convention.

8. That we do not concur in the resolutions of the Holston Con-
ference, proposing the election of delegates for forming a Plan of
Compromise.

9. That we do concur in the recommendation of the late General
Conference for the change of the sixth article in the restrictive rules
in the Book of Discipline, allowing an equitable pro rata division of
the Book Concern. P. P. Surru, 8. P. Ricwarpsoy,

T. C. Benyine, R. H. Luckey,
J. W. YarsroueH, R. H. Howrey,
W. W. Garirrin, A, PEELER.

A. Martiy,

 

TEXAS CONFERENCE.

The committee to whom were referred certain acts of the late Gen-
eral Conference, causing and providing for a division of the Meihod-
ist Episcopal Church, or the General Conference thereof, and sundry
communications pertaining thereto, have had the same under solemn
and prayerful consideration, and beg leave to present the following
Report:

In view of the numerous expositions and arguments, pro and con,
with which the Christian Advocates have teemed- for some months,
on the merits of the highly important subject upon which your com-
mittee have been called to act, they presume that the Conference is
too well enlightened to need an elaborate and argumentative investi-
gation of them, in their multifarious relations and bearings; they
APPENDIX. 625

therefore respectfully present the following resolutions, as the result
of their deliberations:

Resolved, 1. That we approve of the course of the Southern and
South-western delegates in the late General Conference; and that
their independent and faithful discharge of duty, in a trying crisis:
commands our admiration and merits our thanks.

2. That we deeply deplore the increasingly fearful controversy
between the Northern and Southern divisions of the Methodist Epis-
copal Church on the institution of domestic slavery, and that we will
not cease to pray most fervently to the great Head of the Church for
his gracious interposition in guiding this controversy to a happy issue.

3. That we approve the appointment of a Convention of dele-
gates from the Conferences in the slaveholding States, in the city of
Louisville, on the Ist of May next, by the Southern and South-
western delegates in the late General Conference; and also the ratio
of representation proposed by said delegates—to wit, one delegate
for every eleven members of the Conference—and that we will elect
delegates to the proposed Convention upon said basis, to act under
the following instructions, to wit: To endeavor to secure a compro-
mise between the North and South; to oppose a formal division of
the Church before the General Conference of 1848, or a general Con-
vention, can be convened to decide the present controversy. But
should a division be deemed unavoidable, and be determined on by
the Convention, then, being well satisfied with the Discipline of the
Church as it is, we instruct our delegates not to support or favor any
change in said Discipline, by said Convention, other than to adapt
its fiscal economy to the Southern organization.

4. That we approve of the dignified and prudent course of the
bench of Bishops who presided in the late General Conference.

5. That it is the sense of this Conference that the Rev. John
Clarke, one of our delegates to the late General Conference, entirely
misrepresented our views and sentiments in his votes in the cases of
Rey. F. A. Harding and Bishop Andrew.

6. That we appoint the Friday immediately preceding the meeting
of the proposed general Convention of the delegates of the Southern
and South-western Conferences, as w day of fasting and prayer for
the blessing of Almighty God on said Convention—that it may be
favored with the healthful influence of his grace, and the guidance of
his wisdom. Cuauncry RicHarpson,

Ropert ALEXANDER,
Samuen A, WILLrAMs.

27
626 APPENDIX.

ALABAMA CONFERENCE.

The committee appointed by the Conference to take into consid-
eration the subject of a separate jurisdiction for the Southern Con-
ferences of the Methodist Episcopal Church, beg leave to report that
they have meditated with prayerful solicitude on this important
matter, and have solemnly concluded on the necessity of the measure.
They suppose it to be superfluous to review formally all the proceed-
ings which constitute the unhappy controversy between the Northern
and Southern portions of our Church, inasmuch as their sentiments
can be expressed in one sentence: They indorse the unanswerable
Protest of the Minority in the late General Conference. They
believe that the doctrines of that imperishable document cannot be
successfully assailed. They are firm in the conviction that the
action of the majority in the case of Bishop Andrew was unconstitu-
tional. Being but a delegated body, the General Conference has no
legitimate right to tamper with the office of a General Superintend-
ent—his amenableness to that body and liability to expulsion by it,
having exclusive reference to maladministration, ceasing to travel,
and immoral conduct. They are of opinion that Bishop Andrew's
connection with slavery can come under none of these heads. If
the entire Eldership of the Church, in a conventional capacity, were
to constitute non-slaveholding or even abolitionism a tenure by which
the Episcopal office should be held, or if they were to abolish the
office, they doubtless could plead the abstract right thus to modify -
or revolutionize the Church in its supreme executive administration.
But before the General Conference can justly plead this right, it must
show when and where such plenary power was delegated to it by the
only fountain. of authority—the entire Pastorate of the Church.
Your committee are, therefore, of opinion that the General Confer-
ence has no more power over a Bishop, except in the specified cases
of maladministration, ceasing to travel, and immorality, than over
the Episcopacy, as an integral part of our ecclesiastical polity. It
can no more depose a Bishop for slaveholding than it can create a
new Church.

Your committee deeply regret that these “conservative” senti-
ments did not occur to the majority in the late General Conference,
and that the apologists of that body, sir +e its session, have given them
no place in their ecclesiastical creed, but, on the contrary, have given
fearful evidence that the proceedings in the case of Bishop Andrew
are but the incipiency of a course which, when finished, will leave
APPENDIX. 627

not a solitary slaveholder in the communion which shall be, unfortu-
nately, under their control. The foregoing sentiments and opinions
embody the general views expressed most unequivocally throughout
the Conference District since the late General Conference, by the
large body of the membership, both in primary meetings and Quar-
terly Conferences.

The committee, therefore, offer to the calm consideration and
mature action of the Alabama Annual Conference, the following
series of resolutions:

1. Resolved, That this Conference deeply deplores the action of the
late General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the
case of our venerable Superintendent, Bishop Andrew, believing it
to be unconstitutional, being as totally destitute of warrant from the
Discipline as from the word of God.

2, That the almost unanimous agreement of Northern Methodists
with the majority, and Southern Methodists with the minority of the
late General Conference, shows the wisdom of that body in suggest-
ing a duality of jurisdiction to meet the present emergency.

3. That this Conference agrees to the proposition for the alteration
of the sixth restrictive rule of the Discipline.

4, That this Conference approves of the projected Convention at
Louisville in May next.

5. That this Conference most respectfully invites all the Bishops to-
attend the proposed Convention at Louisville.

6. That this Conference is decided in its attachment to Methodism
as it exists in the Book of Discipline, and hopes that the Louisville
Convention will not make the slightest alteration; except so far as
may be absolutely necessary for the formation of a separate jurisdic-
tion.

7. That every preacher of this Conference shall take up a collec-
tion in his station or circuit, as soon as practicable, to defray the
expenses of the delegates to the Convention, and the proceeds of such
collection shall be immediately paid over to the nearest delegate or
Presiding Elder; and the excess, or deficit of the collection for the
said expenses shall be reported to the next Conference, which shall
take action on the same.

8. That the Friday immediately preceding the session of the Con-
vention shall be observed in all our circuits and stations as a day
of fasting and prayer for the blessings of God upon its deliberations.

9. That whilst this Conference fully appreciates the commendable
motives which induced the Holston Conference to suggest another
628 APPENDIX.

expedient to compromise the differences existing between the Northern
and Southern divisions of the Church, it nevertheless cannot concur
in the proposition of that Conference concerning that matter.

10. That this Conference fully recognizes the right of our excellent
Superintendent, Bishop Soule, to invite Bishop Andrew to share with
him the responsibilities of the Episcopal office, and while the Confer-
ence regrets the absence of the former, it rejoices in being favored
with the efficient services of the latter—it respectfully tenders these
“true yoke-fellows” in the superintendency the fullest approbation,
the most fervent prayers, and the most cordial sympathies.

Tos. O. SumMERs, A. H. Mircre.t,

HE. V. Levert J, HAMILTON,
E. Heary, W. Murrag,
J. Borne, Geo, SHAEFFER.

C. McLeop,
C.

CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING UNION.

Ir has frequently been stated, and believed by some, that the
Methodist Episcopal Church (North) has made propositions of fra-
ternal relations to the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. We pub-
lish in this Appendix all the official correspondence that has taken
place between the two branches of Methodism, since the General Con-
ference of 1848, at which time fraternal intercourse was declined by
the Methodist Episcopal Church (North).

At the meeting of the Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church,
South, in the city of St. Louis, in May, 1869, the following corre-
spondence took place between the Bishops of the Methodist Episco-
pal Church (North) and the Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal
Church, South.

412 Locust Sr., Sr. Louis, May 7, 1869.
To the Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South:

Rey. anp Dear Breturen:—We have been deputed to convey to
you a communication from the Board of Bishops of the Methodist
Episcopal Church.

We are ready to wait upon you at such time and place as may suit
your convenience.

With assurances of Christian regard,

Yours truly, E. 8. Jayzs,
M. Simpson.

3 j Sr. Louis, May 7, 1869.
To Bishops Janes and Simpson:

Rev. anp Drar Breraren:—Your note of this date to the College
of Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, informing them
that you have been deputed to convey to them a communication

Q7* (629)
630 APPENDIX.

from the Board of Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and
of your readiness to wait upon them for this purpose, has been
received,
Ihave been instructed to reply that they will be pleased to receive
you to-morrow, at 10 o'clock a.m., at their room, 1406 Lucas Place.
Very respectfully and truly yours,
H. N. McTyvernrg, Seo’y.

Accordingly, at 10 o'clock a.1t., Bishops Janes and Simpson, hay-
ing been announced, were introduced, and, afler some general con-
versation, made the following communications:

MeApvinte, Pa., April 23, 1869.

Dear BretHREN :—It seems to us, that as the division of those
Churches of our country which are of like faith and order has been
productive of evil, so the reunion of them would be productive of good.

As the main cause of the separation has been removed, so has the
chief obstacle to the restoration.

It is fitting that the Methodist Church, which began the disunion,
should not be the last to achieve the reunion; and it would be a
reproack to the chief pastors of the separated bodies, if they waited
until their flocks prompted them to the union, which both the love
of country and-of religion invoke, and which the providence of God
seems to render inevitable at no distant day.

We are aware that there are difficulties in the way, growing out
of the controversies of the past and the tempers of the present,

We have, therefore, deputed our colleagues, Morris and Janes, to
confer with you, alike as to the propriety, practicability, and methods
of reunion, hoping that they, having been elected to their high office
by the Church before its severance, and endeared to all its parts by
their apostolic labors, may live to see the several parts united upon
a foundation honorable to all, stable as truth, and harmonious with
the fundamental law of our religion.

In behalf of the Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church.

Respectfully yours, etc., T. A. Morris, President.

D. W. Crarx, Sec’y.

To the Reverends, the Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South.

P. S—Bishop Morris having stated that it was doubtful whether
he would be able to fulfill the duties of the Commission, it was resolved
that Bishop Simpson be added to the delegation above described.

T. A. Morzis,
APPENDIX, 631

At this stage of the interview the following letter from Bishop
Morris was read:

SPRINGFIELD, Onto, May 4, 1869.
Rey. Bishop E. 8. Janes, D.D.:

Dear Brorugr:—If I remember rightly, this is the weck in which
you expect to visit St. Louis on important business of the Church.
I regard it as complimentary to myself that I was appointed to
accompany you on that benevolent mission, and regret that it is not
convenient for me to execute that mission in person, but trust that
my alternate will more than supply my lack of service.

For three weeks past our family have all had enough to fill our
heads and hands and hearts to overflowing; one result is, the health
of Mrs. Morris is more feeble and precarious than usual. This is the
chief cause of my failure to appear.

Please accept this explanation and excuse my absence.

The official letter of the Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church
to the Rey. Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, not
only bears my official signature, but it has my personal approval.
I believe it accords with the action of our last General Conference.
I also think it judicious and opportune, and trust that beneficial
results may follow.

If you have any opportunity to address the Reverend Episcopal
Board in St. Louis in person, please present them collectively with
my fraternal greetings.

Praying that the Lord may direct them and us in all things to his
glory and the general good of all concerned, I am, dear colleague,
respectfully and fraternally yours ever, T. A. Morris.

Bishop Janes then presented the following communication:

To the Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, convened in St.

Louis, Mo.:

Rey. anp Dear BretHren:—At a meeting of the Board of Bish-
ops of the Methodist Episcopal Church, held in Erie, Pa., in June,
1865, we made and published the following declaration:

“That the great cause which led to the separation from us of both
the Wesleyan Methodists of this country and of the Methodist Epis-
copal Church, South, has passed away, and we trust the day is not
far distant when there shall be but one organization, which shall
embrace the whole Methodist family in the United States.”

This declaration was made in good faith, and shows what were
then our sentiments and feelings, and was deemed by us as the utmost
we were authorized to say or do on the subject at that time.
632 APPENDIX.

Although our late General Conference did not directly authorize
us to take farther specific action in the matter, yet we judge that some
of its acts justify advanced steps on our part.

In our Quadrennial Address to the General Conference we referred
to the declaration above quoted, and no exception was taken to it by
that body.

The General Conference, to promote the union of Methodistic
Churches, appointed a Commission, consisting of eight members of
that body and the Bishops of the Church, who were “ empowered to
treat with a similar Commission from any other Methodist Church,”
that may desire a union with us.

We have understood that there were in the minds of many of the
members and ministers of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South,
reasons why they consider it unsuitable for them to initiate measures
to effect a reunion of the two Churches.

Believing as we do that if they were one in both spirit and organi-
zation, much more could be accomplished for the interests of human-
ity and the glory of God, we are desirous of doing all we consistently
can to promote a reunion on terms alike honorable to both Churches
and in the spirit of our Divine Lord.

We therefore ask your attention to the Commission above referred
to, and we express to you the opinion, that should your approaching
General Conference see proper to appoint a similar Commission, they
will be promptly met by our Commission, who we doubt not will be
happy to treat with them, and to report the result to our next Gen-_
eral Conference. 7

Praying that Infinite Wisdom may guide both you and us in this
important matter, so that our Redeemer's kingdom may be advanced
and hig name be glorified, we are yours in the bonds of the gospel of
Christ, E. 8. Jags,

M. Srupson.

In behalf of the Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church.

Sz. Lovrs, Mo., May 8, 1869.

The Bishops of the M. E. Church, South, a few days afterward,
made the following reply to the foregoing:

To the Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church:

Rev. anpD Dear BrerHren:—lIt has afforded us pleasure to receive
in person your respected colleagues, Bishops Janes and Simpson,
deputed by you to confer with us; and we cannot forbear to express
our regret that one of the delegation appointed by you to us—the
APPENDIX. 683

venerable Bishop Morris—was not able to be present. We desired
to see him again face to face, to enjoy his society, and to renew
to him the assurances of our affection and regard. Our own senior
Superintendent, Bishop Andrew, though in the city, was hindered by
the feebleness and infirmities incident to age from being present at
the reception of your colleagues, and enjoying with us the interview.

Your communication, together with that laid before us by your
Commission, has been considered, and we entirely agree in your esti-
mate of the responsibility in the premises resting on the chief pas-
tors of the separated bodies of Methodism.

We would approach, dear brethren, the matter of your communi-
cation with the utmost candor and love, and so meet the advanced
steps on your part that nothing shall be wanting on ours to bring
about a better state of things, becoming and beneficial to us both,
We deplore the unfortunate controversies and tempers that have pre-
vailed, and that still prevail; and our earnest desire and prayer to
God is, that they may give place, and that speedily, to peace. In
evidence of this, we are ready not only to respond to, but to go far-
ther than your communication, and from our point of view to suggest
what may help to remove the difficulties and obstacles that are in
the way.

Pemit us, then, to say, in regard to “reunion,” that in our opinion

there is another subject to be considered before that can be enter-
tained, and necessarily in order to it: we mean the establishment of
fraternal feelings and relations between the two Churches. They
must be one in spirit before they can be one in organization. Con-
cord must be achieved before any real union. Heart divisions must
be cured before corporate divisions can be healed.
* You will not consider it as unfriendly to the freest flow of Christian
sympathy evoked by your overture, if we remind you that we initiated
the measure to effect fraternal relations some years ago; and, as was
declared then, and as we do now declare, in good faith and with
most Christian purposes. Our General Conference sent one of its
most honored Elders to your General Conference to convey their
Christian salutations, and through him to “ offer to you the establish-
ment of fraternal relations and intercourse.’ It pains us to refer to
the fact, but it is matter of history, that he was not received.

The closing words of Dr. Pierce to your General Conference, upon
being notified of the failure of his mission, are in your possession :

-“ You will therefore regard this communication as final on the
part of the M. E. Church, South. She can never renew the offer of
634 APPENDIX.

fraternal relations between the two great bodies of Wesleyan Meth-
odists in the United States. But the proposition can be renewed at
any time, either now or hereafter, by the M. E. Church. And if
ever made upon the basis of the Plan of Separation, as adopted by
the General Conference of 1844, the Church, South, will cordially
entertain the proposition.”

His language to our General Conference in submitting his report
was:

“Thus ended the well-intended Commission from your body. Upon
this noble effort I verily believe the smile of Divine approbation will
rest, when the heavenly bodies themselves will have ceased to shine.
We did affectionately endeavor to make and preserve peace, but our
offer was rejected as of no deserving.”

The evils that have followed this rejection we suffer in common
with you. We lament them in common with you; and, notwithstand-
ing all that has since occurred, we are ready, on terms honorable to
all, to join heart and hand with you to stay, and, as far as practica-
ble, to remedy them. But you could not expect us to say less than
this—that the words of our rejected delegate have been ever since,
and still are, our words.

It may help to the more speedy and certain attainment of the ends
wo both desire, to keep distinctly in mind our mutual positions, and
to hold the facts involved in our common history in a clear light.

You say, ‘‘ that the great cause which led to the separation from us
of both the Wesleyan Methodists of this country and of the Methodist
Episcopal Church, South, has passed away.” If we understand your
reference, we so far differ from you in this opinion, that it may help any
negotiations hereafter taking place to restate our position. Slavery
was not, in any proper sense, the cause, but the occasion only, of that
separation, the necessity of which we regretted as much as you, But
certain principles were developed in relation to the political aspects
of that question, involving the right of ecclesiastical bodies to han-
dle and determine matters lying outside of their proper jurisdiction,
which we could not accept; and, in a case arising, certain construc-
tions of the constitutional powers and prerogatives of the General
Conference were assumed and acted on, which we considered oppres-
sive and destructive of the rights of the numerical minority repre-
sented in that highest judicatory of the Church. That which you
are pleased to call—no doubt sincerely thinking it so—the great
cause” of separation, existed in the Church from its organization, and
yet for sixty years there was no separation. But when those theo-
APPENDIX. 635

ries, incidentally evolved in connection with it, began to be put into
practice, then the separation came,

We cannot think you mean to offend us when you speak of our
having separated from you, and put us in the same category with a
small body of schismatics who were always an acknowledged secession.
Allow us, in all kindness, brethren, to remind you, and to keep the
important fact of history prominent, that we separated from you in
no sense in which you did not separate from us. The separation was
by compact and mutual; and nearer approaches to each other can be
conducted, with hope of a successful issue, only on this basis.

It is our opinion that the controversies and tempers which so dis-
turb the Churches, and are so hurtful to the souls of those for whom
Christ died, are due, in a large measure, to irritating causes which
are not entirely beyond the control of the chief pastors of the sepa-
rated bodies. To this end we invite your concurrence and codpera-
tion.

And we take this occasion frankly to say, that the conduct of some
of your missionaries and agents who have been sent into that portion
of our common country occupied by us, and their avowed purpose to
disintegrate and absorb our societies that otherwise dwell quietly,
have been very prejudicial to that charity which we desire our peo-
ple to cultivate toward all Christians, and especially those who are
called by the endeared name of Methodists; and their course in
taking possession of some of our houses of worship has inflicted both
grief and loss on us, and bears the appearance, to disinterested men
of the world, of being not only a breach of charity, but an invasion
of the plainest rights of property. Thus the adversary has had
occasion to speak reproachfully, and the cause of our Master has been
wounded by its professed friends.

Brethren, these things ought not so to be; and we propose, until
some action more formal, and authoritative, and advanced in this
direction, can be taken by our highest judicatories, to unite with you
in preventing them. We do not say that our own people have been,
in every instance of these unhappy controversies and tempers, without
blame as toward you. But this we say, if any offenses against the law
of love, committed by those under our appointment, any aggressions
upon your just privileges and rights, are properly represented to us,
the representation will be respectfully considered, and we shall stand
ready, by all the authority and influence we have, to restrain and
correct them.

These are our views; and we are sure that we represent the senti-
636 APPENDIX.

ments of our ministers and people, We have no authority to deter-
mine any thing as to the “propriety, practicability, and methods”
of reunion of the Churches represented by you and ourselves.

With sentiments of Christian regard, we are, dear brethren, very
truly yours, R. Pare, Chairman.

H. N. McTvernp, Sec’y.

St. Lours, Mo., May 11, 1869.

Nothing farther transpired on this subject previous to the General
Conference of the M. E. Church, South, which convened in the city
of Memphis, Tenn., in May, 1870.

Bishop Janes and the Rev. William L. Harris, D.D., of the M. E.
Church (North), reached the city of Memphis during the session of
the General Conference, and on the 11th of May sent the following
communication to the Conference, which was read:

To the Bishops and General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church,

South, in Conference assembled:

Dear Bretaren:—The Commissioners appointed by the General
Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, in 1868, to treat with
similar Commissioners from other Methodist Churches, on the subject
of union, at a meeting held in Philadelphia, Nov. 23, 1868, appointed
the Rev. Bishop Janes and the Rev. John McClintock, D.D., a depu-
tation to bear to you a communication from them. Since then Dr.
McClintock has deceased, and, by the authority of the Commission,
the Rev. William L. Harris, D.D., has been appointed to serve in his
stead.

The undersigned, now constituting the deputation, are present at
the seat of your session for the purpose of presenting to you the
communication of the Commission, which we will be happy to do,
either in person or by letter, as may best accord with your conven-
jence and pleasure. Though we had proposed to ourselves the satis-
faction of spending several days in witnessing the proceedings of
your Conference, and enjoying the society of its members, the recent
severe bereavement of our Church, in the death of several of her
chief ministers, makes it necessary for us to return as soon as we
can fulfill the simple duty assigned us.

Truly and affectionately yours, E. 8. Janes,
W. L. Harris.

Overton Horet, Memruis, May 11, 1870.

On motion of J. E. Evans, a Committee of Three was appointed te
APPENDIX. 637

wait on Bishop Janes and Dr. Harris, and invite them to the Confer-
ence-room. The Chair appointed Bishop Wightman, Trusten Polk,
and L. M. Lee, on this committee.

Bishop Wightman, Governor Polk, and Dr. Lee, immediately called
on Bishop Janes and Dr. Harris, and accompanied them to the Con-
ference-room, where they were introduced to the Conference by
Bishop Doggett.

The following communication was presented by Bishop Janes, and
read by the Secretary. It is as follows:

To the Bishops and General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church,

South, in Conference assembled:

Dear Breraren:—By the action and authority of the General
Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, held in Chicago in
May, 1868, the undersigned were appointed a Commission, in behalf
of said Church, to treat with a similar Commission from any other
Methodist Church, on the subject of union.

The Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church, who also consti-
tute a part of this Commission, in May, 1869, communicated to the
Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, the fact that such
a Commission had been appointed, and expressed to them the con-
viction that the Commission would be happy to meet a similar one
from the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, for the purpose con-
templated in its appointment.

At a meeting of this Commission, held in Philadelphia, November
23, 1869, a resolution was unanimously adopted, approving the afore-
said action of the Bishops. Nevertheless, the Commission, as such,
and as constituted by the General Conference, being desirous of dis-
charging its duties in the fullest and most acceptable manner, deemed
it proper to make a farther communication on this subject, addressed
to the Bishops and General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal
Church, South, to meet in Memphis, in May, 1870.

The fact that the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal
Church appointed this Commission, shows that, in the judgment of
that body, there are now no sufficient reasons why a union may not
be effected on terms equally honorable to all, and that the realiza-
tion of such union is very important and desirable.

Hoping that you may see this subject in the same light, and that
it may be your pleasure to appoint a similar Commission to confer
with us previous to the meeting of our next General Conference in
1872; and praying that you may be prospered in all that pertains to

28
638 * APPENDIX.

the welfare of a Christian Church, and desiring your prayers in be-
half of the Church we represent, that we may share a like prosper-
ity, we are, dear brethren, yours in Christ Jesus,

Epmonp 8. Janes, Levi Scort,

Martruew Simpson, Epwarp R. AmEs,

Davis W. CLARE, Epwarp THomson,

LuKE Hircucocx, Danien Curry,

Jonny McCuintocx, Joun LANAHAN,

Joun G. Brucs, Tuomas M. Eppy,

JAMEs PIKE, Wittram L. Harris,
PHILADELPatA, Nov. 23, 1869. Commissioners.

After the reading of the communication, Bishop Janes came for-
ward and thus addressed the Conference:

“Having presented that document, we consider that our official
duty is performed. There is one incident, however, in connection
with this matter, to which I think it proper to refer. When that
document was provided for, it was not intended to be made public
until it was presented here at this time. Its being made public is
not by the action or approval of this Commission. It was its inten-
tion, in a dignified and delicate manner, to make this communica-
tion, and it was not intended to be heralded in the papers, that there
should be any discussion over it that it could be made use of to the
advantage or the disadvantage of any party. I think it due this
Commission to say that this has not been done by our action or ap-
proval. I deem it proper to say farther, that I believe that the Gen-
eral Conference has acted with Christian impulse and candor.

“Tam sure that this Commission acts from religious convictions
and with perfect candor. The action of the General Conference was
limited, and you can interpret it as wisely as I can. This Commis-
sion was appointed to treat with similar Commissions from other
Methodist Churches. I do not understand that it is authorized to
take any definite action, but only that it might learn what embar-
rassments are in the way of union, and ascertain in what manner
union may be effected. In being deputed to bear this document, I
was not authorized to negotiate on any question, but I judge that
we can confer together with the view to receive or give any informa-
tion on this subject. I believe this isa simple and true explanation,
so far as respects the Church which we represent. I do not think
that any of us can expect that perfect organic union can be effected
at once without much negotiation. The history of the past five.
APPENDIX. 639

years will not justify us in entertaining such a hope, and yet we do
believe that the prayer of Christ will be heard, and the day will
come when his people shall be one. I am not willing to lead this
Conference to any action but what is justified by the action of the
Conference I represent. I would do great injustice to my own feel-
ings did I not add that it affords me great pleasure to look upon my
brethren whom I have known in years gone by. I thank God for
his preserving kindness, and for his blessings conferred upon you.
It also gives me pleasure to be present at your deliberations, and I
pray that grace may be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ
in sincerity.”

Dr. Harris being invited to address the Conference, said: “It is
impossible for me to add any thing to what has already been said,
except that I most cordially agree with the Bishop touching the feel-
ing of the Church and the purpose of the Commission which we rep-
resent.”

Dr. Keener said: “I have listened, together with the rest of my
brethren, with great pleasure to the Christian and very earnest spirit
of our brethren of the Methodist Episcopal Church. Coming to us
as they do, across a period of disaster and division, they are especially
grateful to us. As to this proposition which comes to us with the
prestige of their Church, I think we should pause for a moment to
examine into its meaning. If I understand the Journal of the M.
E. Church on this point, this Commission extends to the African M.
E. Zion Church, and to all other Methodist Churches wishing to seek
union with them. I will read the resolution adopted by them on
this question from the Journal of the last General Conference of the
M. E. Church, which I hold in my hand:

“*Resolved, That the Commission ordered by the General Confer-
ence to confer with a like Commission from the African M. E. Zion
Church, to arrange for the union of that body with our own, be also
empowered to treat with a similar Commission from any other Meth-
odist Church that may desire a like union.’

“If I understand that, this Commission is to treat with any
Churches that may be knocking for admission at the door of the M.
E. Church, and not to knock for admission at the door of any other
Church. If this be the condition of things, then there is a great
difficulty in entertaining any proposition looking to union, because
of the original instructions of their Conference. But if they come
before us desiring fraternal intercourse, another difficulty presents
itself—they do not come authorized to negotiate for union. I there-
640 APPENDIX.

fore offer the following resolutions, which I move to be referred to a
special committee to be appointed on this question :

“Resolved, 1. That gratefully recognizing that Providence which
has hitherto guided us, multiplied us, and strengthened our hands
under trying conditions, both of war and peace, as a Church of Jesus
Christ, we earnestly desire to cultivate true Christian fellowship with
every other branch of the Christian Church, and especially with our
brethren of the several branches of Methodism in this country and
in Europe. :

“2, That the action of our Board of Bishops at their last annual
meeting in St. Louis, in response to the Message from the Board of
Bishops of the M. E. Church, has the full indorsement of this Gen-
eral Conference, and accurately defines our position in reference to
any overtures which may proceed from that Church, having in them
an official and proper recognition of this body.

“3. That the distinguished Commission now present, of the General
Conference of the M. E. Church at Chicago in May, 1868, appointed
by it specifically, to confer with Commissioners from the African M.
E. Zion Church, to arrange for union with that body, and to treat
with a similar Commission from any other Church which may desire
a like union, cannot, in our judgment, be construed, without great
violence, as having been constituted by that General Conference, a
committee to bear its fraternal expressions to the General Conference
of the M. E. Church, South.

“4, That we are highly gratified at the visit of the Commission as
indicative of the return of proper Christian sentiments and relations
between the two great branches of Northern and Southern Method-
ism, and that we extend to them personally our highest regards as
brethren beloved in the Lord.”

J. E. Evans moved to appoint a Committee of Nine to take this
subject under consideration.

Bishop Janes said: “It is proper for me to say, before that motion
is put, that of course we abide by what is said in the Journal of the
General Conference, and yet I think it does not correctly represent
the object of the appointment of this Commission. It was not
appointed with the sole object of conferring with the Commission of
the African M. E. Zion Church, but before its appointment this sub-
ject in question came up, and this Commission was appointed with the
understanding that it was alike to the Methodist Churches through-
out the country. Perhaps we have transcended our bounds in thus
coming at the present time, and not waiting to be first approached
APPENDIX. 641

‘on this subject. But we did not esteem ourselves so highly as to
think that all these Churches should first knock for admission. We
judged it proper to inform these Churches of the appointment of this
Commission, and that it would give us pleasure to meet them. I
think this explanation is due. Dr. Keener’s remarks were justified
by what he has read from the Journal.”

The motion of J. E. Evans prevailed.

Bishop Janes rose and said: ‘My colleague thinks that I have
made a mistake in my remarks concerning the Journal of the Gen-
eral Conference. I meant to say that I do not think the Journal
represents fully the action of the Conference. The Commission was
provided for in that resolution, but not appointed at that time.”

A. L. P. Green, Trusten Polk, J. C. Keener, L. C. Garland, Robert
Alexander, James Jackson, A, W. Wilson, G. W. Williams, and E. K,
Miller, were appointed the committee to which the subject was referred.

In their first communication to the Conference, Bishop Janes and
Dr. Harris informed the body that they could only remain in Mem-
phis for a short time. On the 12th of May they appeared in the
Conference-room, before leaving, and were invited to address the
Conference. Bishop Janes said:

“I very much regret that circumstances make it necessary for me
to leave your Conference and your city this afternoon. It would
have been a very high gratification to me to have enjoyed your
society; especially am I interested in witnessing your proceedings,
as this is the first Conference in which I have seen the action of lay
delegation, and I confess that what I have witnessed has given me
much pleasure. I think I can say that I anticipate, though it is not
positively certain, that the laity will be associated with us in the
highest legislations of our Church. I especially regret the necessity
of leaving at this time, since the Committee on Public Worship has
invited us to preach. I wish it understood ‘that Ido not decline
from any other reason but that I am compelled to be absent on other
important business. I hope it will be understood. It would cer-
tainly be a pleasure to me to remain and to listen as I have done to
others of you.

“J desire to acknowledge thankfully the generous hospitality
extended to me by the committee, and I wish to acknowledge the
official and personal courtesy extended to me as a body, and by a
very large part of the Conference as individuals. I think that I can
say, in behalf of those whom we represent, that it will give us pleasure
to reciprocate it at any time. I again invoke the blessing of our com-

28%
642 APPENDIX.

mon Parent and our one Saviour upon the individuals of this Confer-
ence, and the Church you represent. May the blessing of God be and
abide with you all! Amen.”

The Bishop having taken his seat, Dr. Harris arose and said:

“TI desire to say that I have spent the last two days with great
personal satisfaction. I came here a stranger, acquainted with only
two of your body, and they received me as old friends, and I recip-
rocate the feelings which they expressed; and now, in leaving, I
desire to express to you, and through you to the committee, my pro-
found thanks for the Christian courtesy which you have extended to
me. I shall bear it ever in mind. And I unite with the Bishop in
invoking the richest blessings upon you and upon your Church.”

The committee to whom the subject was intrusted was large and
influential, and was composed of ministers and laymen. They sub-
mitted their report on the 14th of May, which is as follows:

The committtee to whom were referred the papers relating to the
proposals of union made by the Commission from the Methodist
Episcopal Church, having carefully considered the subject, recom-
mend the adoption of the following resolutions:

ResoWwed, 1. That gratefully recognizing that Providence which has
hitherto guided us, multiplied us, strengthened our hands, and pre-
served our integrity as a Church of Jesus Christ under the trying
conditions both of war and peace, we earnestly desire to cultivate
true Christian fellowship with every other branch of the Christian
Church, and especially with our brethren of the several branches of
Methodism in this country and in Europe. 7

2. That the action of our Bishops in their last annual meeting in
St. Louis, in response to the message from the Bishops of the Meth-
odist Episcopal Church, has the full indorsement of this General Con-
ference, and accurately defines our position in reference to any over-
tures which may proceed from that Church, having in them an official
and proper recognition of this body. :

3. That the distinguished Commission now present, of the General
Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, met at Chicago in
May, 1868, appointed by it for the specific purpose expressed in the
following resolution, viz., “Resolved, That the Commission ordered
by the General Conference to confer with a like Commission from the
African M. E. Zion Church to arrange for the union of that body
with our own, be also empowered to treat with similar Commissions
from any other Methodist Church that may desire a like union,” can-
“4

APPENDIX. 643 ©

not, in our judgment, without great violence in construing the lan-
guage of said resolution, he regarded as having been constituted by*
that General Conference a Commission to make proposals of union
to the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South.

4, Resolved, moreover, That if this distinguished Commission were
fully clothed with authority to treat with us for union, it is the judg-
ment of this Conference that the true interests of the Church of Christ
require and demand the maintenance of our separate and distinct
organization.

5. That we tender to the Rev. Bishop E. 8. Janes, and the Rev.
W. L. Harris, D.D., the members of the Commission now with us, our
high regards as brethren beloved in the Lord, and express our desire
that the day may soon come when proper Christian sentiments and
fraternal relations between the two great branches of Northern and
Southern Methodism shall be permanently established.

A. L. P. GREEN, J.C. KEENER,

A. W. Witson, L. C. GARLAND,
JAMES Jackson, Gzo. W. WILLIAMS,
E. K, Mrurer, TrustEN PoLx.

R. ALEXANDER,

The action of the General Conference reflected the sentiments of
the entire M. E. Church, South, both in the ministry and laity. No
discordant note came up from any quarter to disturb the harmony of
sentiment.
D.

DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES.

WILLIAM A. Sura and others, v. Leroy Swormsrepr and others.
16 H. 288.

Upon a bill in equity by several traveling preachers of the Methodist Episco-
pal Church, South, in behalf of themselves and the other traveling preach-
ers of that organization, held,

1. That as numerous parties had a common interest in the fund in contro-
versy, a few might sue, representing the others.

2. That the General Conference, in 1844, had power to consent to the division
of the Methodist Episcopal Church into two bodies, and that the separation
was not a secession of a part of the traveling preachers from that Church,
but a division, in pursuance of proper authority.

3. That this division carried with it, as matter of law, a division of the common
property, which belonged to the traveling preachers, as such.

4. That the removal of the sixth restrictive article, was not a condition to the
enjoyment by the Church, South, of its share of the common fund, but to
enable the General Conference to make the division.

5. That as the complainants not only represent the other traveling preachers
South, but the “Book Concern” there, the share of the fund they thus rep-
resent may properly be paid over to them.

Tue case is stated in the opinion of the court.

Stanberry, for the appellants.

Badger and Ewing, contra.

Netson, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court of the United
States for the District of Ohio.

The bill is filed by the complainants, for themselves, and in behalf
of the traveling and worn-out preachers in connection with the soci-
ety of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, in the United States,
against the defendants, to recover their share of a fund called the
Book Concern, at the city of Cincinnati, consisting of houses, ma-

(644)
APPENDIX. 645

chinery, printing-presses, book-bindery, books, etc., claimed to be of
the value of some $200,000. .

The bill charges that, at and before the year 1844, there existed in
the United States a voluntary association unincorporated, known as
the Methodist Episcopal Church, composed of seven Bishops, four
thousand eight hundred and twenty-eight preachers belonging to the
traveling connection, and in Bishops, ministers, and members, about
one million one hundred and nine thousand nine hundred and sixty,
united and bound together in one organized body by certain doc-
trines of faith and morals, and by certain rules of government and
discipline.

That the government of the Church was vested in one body called
the General Conference, and in certain subordinate bodies called An-
nual Conferences, and in Bishops, traveling ministers, and preachers.

The bill refers to a printed volume, entitled ‘The Doctrines and
Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church,” as containing the
constitution, organization, form of Government, and rules of disci-
pline, as well as the doctrines of faith of the association.

The complainants farther charge, that differences and disagree-
ments had sprung up in the Church between what was called the
Northern and Southern members, in respect to the administration of
the government with reference to the ownership of slaves by the min-
isters of the Church, of such a character and attended with such con-
sequences as threatened greatly to impair its usefulness, as well as
permanently to disturb its harmony; and it became and was a ques-
tion of grave and serious importance whether a separation ought not
to take place, according to some geographical boundary to be agreed
upon, so as that the Methodist Episcopal Church should thereafter
constitute two separate and distinct organizations. And that, accord-
ingly, at a session of the General Conference held in the city of New
York in May, 1844, a resolution was passed by a majority of over
three-fourths of the body, by which it was determined, that if the
Annual Conferences of the slaveholding States should find it neces-
sary to unite in a distinct ecclesiastical connection, the following rule
should be observed with regard to the Northern boundary of such
connection—all the societies, stations, and Conferences adhering to
the Church in the South, by a vote of a majority of the members,
should remain under the pastoral care of the Southern Church; and
all adhering to the Church, North, by a like vote, should remain under
the pastoral care of that Church. This Plan of Separation contains
eleven other resolutions, relating principally to the mode and terms
646 APPENDIX.

of the division of the common property of the association between
the two divisions, in case the separation contemplated should take
place; and which, in effect, provide for a pro rata division, taking
the number of the traveling preachers in the Church, North and South,
as the basis upon which to make the partition.

The complainants farther charge that, in pursuance of the above
resolutions, the Annual Conferences in the slaveholding States met
and resolved in favor of a distinct and independent organization, and
erected themselves into a separate ecclesiastical connection, under the
provisional Plan of Separation, based upon the Discipline of the
Methodist Episcopal Church, and to be known as the Methodist Episco-
pal Church, South. And they insist that, by virtue of these pro-
ceedings, this Church, as it had existed in the United States previous
to the year 1844, became and was divided into two separate Churches,
with distinct and independent powers, and authority composed of the
several Annual Conferences, stations, and societies, lying North and
South of the aforesaid line of division. And also, that by force of
the same proceedings, the division of the Church, South, became and
was entitled to its proportion of the common property, real and per-
sonal, of the Methodist Episcopal Church, which belonged to it at
the time the separation took place; that the property and funds of
the Church had been obtained by voluntary contributions, to which
the members of the Church, South, had contributed more than their
full share, and which, down to the time of the separation, belonged
in common to the Methodist Episcopal Church, as then organized.

The complainants charge that they are members of the Church,
South, and preachers, some of them supernumerary, and some super-
annuated preachers, and belonged to the traveling connection of said
Church ; and that, as such, have a personal interest in the property,
real and personal, held by the Church, North, and in the hands of the
defendants; and, farther, that there are about fifteen hundred preachers
belonging to the traveling connection of the Church, South, each of
whom has a direct and personal interest in the same right with the
complainants in the said property, the large number of whom make
it inconvenient and impracticable to bring them all before the court
as complainants.

They also charge that the defendants are members of the Method-
ist Episcopal Church, North; and that each, as such, has a personal
interest in the property; and, farther, that two of them have the cus-
tody and control of the fund in question; and that, in addition to
these defendants, there are nearly thirty-eight hundred preachers be-
APPENDIX. 647

longing to the traveling connection of the Church, North, each of
whom has an interest in the fund in the same right, so that it is im-
possible, in view of sustaining a just decision in the matter, to make
them all parties to the bill.

The complainants also aver that this bill is brought by the author-
ity, and under the direction, of the General and Annual Confer-
ences of the Church, South, and for the benefit of the same, and
for themselves, and all the preachers in the traveling connection,
and all other ministers and persons having an interest in the prop-
erty.

The defendants, in their answer, admit most of the facts charged
in the bill, as it respects the organization, government, discipline, and
faith of the Methodist Episcopal Church as it existed at and previ-
ous to the year 1844. They admit the passage of the resolutions,
called the Plan of Separation, at the session of the General Confer-
ence of that year, by the majority stated; but deny that the resolu-
tions were duly and legally passed; and also deny that the General
Conference possessed the competent power to pass them, and submit
that they were therefore null and void. They also submit that, if
the General Conference possessed the power, the separation contem-
plated was made dependent upon certain conditions, and among
others a change of the sixth restrictive article in the constitution of
the Church, by a vote of the Annual Conferences, which vote the
said Conferences refused.

The defendants admit the erection of the Church, South, into a
distinct ecclesiastical organization; but deny that this was done
agreeably to the Plan of Separation. They deny that the Methodist
Episcopal Church, as it existed in 1844, or at any time, has been di-
vided into two distinct and separate ecclesiastical organizations; and
submit that the separation and voluntary withdrawal from this
Church of a portion of the Bishops, ministers, and members, and or-
ganization into a Church, South, was an unauthorized separation;
and that they have thereby renounced and forfeited all claim, either
in law or equity, to any portion of the property in question. The
defendants admit that the Book Concern at Cincinnati, with all the
houses, lots, printing-presses, etc., is now, and always has been, ben-
eficially the property of the preachers belonging to the traveling
connection of the Methodist Episcopal Church; but insist that, if
such preachers do not, during life, continue in such traveling con-
nection, and in the communion, and subject to the government of
the Church, they forfeit for themselves and their families 911 owner-
648 APPENDIX,

ship in, or claim to, the said Book Concern, and the produce thereof;
they admit that the Book Concern was originally commenced and es-
tablished by the traveling preachers of this Church, upon their own
capital, with the design, in the first place, of circulating religious
knowledge, and that, at the General Conference of 1796, it was de-
termined that the profits derived from the sale of books should in
future be devoted wholly to the relief of traveling preachers, super-
numerary and worn-out preachers, and the widows and orphans of
such preachers—and the defendants submit that the Methodist Epis-
copal Church, South, is not entitled at law or in equity to have a di-
vision of the property of the Book Concern, or the produce, or to
any portion thereof; and that the ministers, preachers, or members,
in connection with such Church, are not entitled to any portion of
the same; and farther, that, being no longer traveling preachers be-
longing to the Methodist Episcopal Church, they are not so entitled,
without a change of the sixth restrictive article of the constitution
of 1808, provided for in the Plan of Separation, as a condition of the
partition of said fund.

The proofs in the case consist chiefly of the proceedings of the
General Conference of 1844, relating to the separation of the Church
and of the proceedings of the Southern Conferences, in pursuance of
which a distinct and separate ecclesiastical organization South took
place.

There is no material controversy between the parties, as it respects
the facts. The main difference lies in the interpretation and effect to
be given to the acts and proceedings of these several bodies and au-
thorities of the Church. Our opinion will be founded almost wholly
upon facts alleged in the bill, and admitted in the answer.

An objection was taken, on the argument, to the bill for want of
proper parties to maintain the suit. We think the objection not well
founded.

The rule is well established, that where the parties interested are
numerous, and the suit is for an object common to them all, some of
the body may maintain a bill on behalf of themselves and of the
others; and a bill may also be maintained against a portion of a nu-
merous body of defendants, representing a common interest. Story’s
Eq. Pl. 43 97, 98, 99, 103, 107, 110, 111, 116, 120; 2 Mitf. Pl. (Jer.
Ed.) 167; 2 Paige, 19; 4 Mylne & Cr. 134, 619; 2 De Gex & Smale,
102, 122...

Story, J., in his valuable treatise on Equity Pleadings, after dis-
cussing this subject, with his usual research and fullness, arranges the
APPENDIX. 649

exceptions to the general rule as follows: 1. Where the question is
one of a common or general interest, and one or more sue or defend
for the benefit of the whole. 2. Where the parties form a voluntary
association for public or private purposes, and those who sue or de-
fend may fairly be presumed to represent the rights and interests of
the whole; and, 3. Where the parties are very numerous, and though
they have or may have separate and distinct interests, yet it is im-
practicable to bring them all before the court.

In this latter class, though the rights of the several persons may
be separate and distinct, yet there must be a common interest or a
common right, which the bill seeks to establish or enforce. As an
illustration, bills have been permitted to be brought by the lord of a
manor against some of the tenants, and vice versa, by some of the
tenants, in behalf of themselves and the other tenants, to establish
some right—such as suit to a mill, or right of common, or to cut turf.
So by a parson of a parish against some of the parishioners to estab-
lish a general right to tithes—or conversely, by some of the parish-
ioners, in behalf of all, to establish a parochial modus.

In all cases where exceptions to the general rule are allowed, and
a few are permitted to sue and defend on behalf of the many, by
representation, care must be taken that persons are brought on the
record fairly representing the interest or right involved, so that it
may be fully and honestly tried.

Where the parties interested in the suit are numerous, their rights
and liabilities are so subject to change and fluctuaticn by death or
otherwise, that it would not be possible, without very great incon-
venience, to make all of them parties, and would oftentimes prevent
the prosecution of the suit to a hearing. For convenience, therefore,
and to prevent a failure of justice, a court of equity permits a por-
tion of the parties in interest to represent the entire body, and the
decree binds all of them the same as if all were before the court.
The legal and equitable rights and liabilities of all being before the
court by representation, and especially where the subject-matter of
the suit is common to all, there can be very little danger but that the
interest of all will be properly protected and maintained.

The case in hand illustrates the propriety and fitness of the rule.
There are some fifteen hundred persons represented by the complain-
ants, and over double that number by the defendants. It is manifest
that to require all the parties to be brought upon the record, as is re-
quired in a suit at law, would amount to a denial of justice. The
right might be defeated by objections to parties, from the difficulty

29
650 APPENDIX.

of ascertaining them, or, if ascertained, from the changes constantly
occurring by death or otherwise.

As it respects the persons into whose hands the fund in question
should be delivered for the purpose of distribution among the bene-
ficiaries, in case of a division of it, we shall recur to the subject in
another part of this opinion.

We will now proceed to an examination of the merits of the case.

The Book Concern, the property in question, is a part of a fund
which had its origin at a very early day, from the voluntary contri-
butions of the traveling preachers in the connection of the Methodist
Episcopal Church. The establishment was at first small, but at pres-
ent, is one of very large capital, and of extensive operations, pro-
ducing great profits. In 1796, the traveling preachers, in General
Conference assembled, determined that these profits should be there-
after devoted to the relief of the traveling preachers, and their fami-
lies; and, accordingly, resolved that the produce of the sale of the books,
after the debts were paid, and sufficient capital provided for carry-
ing on the business, should be applied for the relief of distressed
traveling preachers, for the families of traveling preachers, and for
supernumerary and worn-out preachers, and the widows and orphans
of preachers.

The establishment was placed under the care and superintendence
of the General Conference, the highest authority in the Church, which
was composed of the traveling preachers; and it has grown up to its
present magnitude, its capital amounting to nearly a million of dol-
lars, from the economy and skill with which the concern has been
managed, and from the labors and fidelity of the traveling preach-
ers, who have always had the charge of’the circulation and sale of
the books in the Methodist connection throughout the United States,
accounting to the proper authorities for the proceeds. The agents
who have the immediate charge of the establishment make up a
yearly account of the profits, and transmit the same to the several
Annual Conferences, each an amount in proportion to the number
of traveling preachers, their widows and orphans comprehended
within it, which bodies distribute the fund to the beneficiaries indi-
vidually, agreeably to the design of the original founders. These
several Annual Conferences are composed of the traveling preachers
residing or located within certain districts assigned to them, and
comprehended, in the aggregate, the entire body in connection with
the Methodist Episcopal Church. The fund has been thus faithfully
administered since its foundation down to 1846, when the portion be-
APPENDIX. 651

longing to the complainants in this suit, and those they represent,
was withheld, embracing some thirteen of the Annual Conferences.

In the year 1844, the traveling preachers, in General Conference
assembled, for causes which it is not important particularly to refer
to, agreed upon a plan for division of the Methodist Episcopal Church
in case the Annual Conferences in the slaveholding States should
deem it necessary; and to the erection of two separate and distinct
ecclesiastical organizations. And according to this plan, it was
agreed that all the societies, stations, and Conferences adhering to
the Church, South, by a majority of their respective members, should
remain under the pastoral care of that Church; and all of these sev-
eral bodies adhering, by a majority of its members, to the Church,
North, should remain under the pastoral care of that Church; and,
farther, that the ministers, local and traveling, should, as they might
prefer, attach themselves, without blame, to the Church North or
South. It was also agreed that the common property of the Church,
including this Book Concern, that belonged specially to the body of
traveling preachers, should, in case the separation took place, be di-
vided between the two Churches in proportion to the number of
traveling preachers falling within the respective divisions. This was
in 1844. In the following year the Southern Annual Conferences
met in Convention, in pursuance of the Plan of Separation, and de-
termined upon a division, and resolved that the Annual Conferences
should be constituted into a separate ecclesiastical connection, and
based upon the Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church, compre-
hending the doctrines and entire moral, ecclesiastical, and economical
rules and regulations of said Discipline, except only so far as verbal
alterations might be necessary; and to be known by the name of the
Methodist Episcopal Church, South.

The division of the Church, as originally constituted, thus became
complete; and from this time two separate and distinct organizations
have taken the place of the one previously existing.

The Methodist Episcopal Church having been thus divided, with
the authority and according to the plan of the General Conference, it
is claimed on the part of the complainants, who represent the travel-
ing preachers in the Church, South, that they are entitled to their
share of the capital stock and profits of this Book Concern; and that
the withholding of it from them is a violation of the fundamental
law prescribed by the founders, and consequently of the trust upon
which it was placed in the hands of the defendants.

The principal answer set up to this claim is, that, according to the
652 APPENDIX.

original constitution and appropriation of the fund, the beneficiaries
must be traveling preachers, or the widows and orphans of traveling
preachers, in connection with the Methodist Episcopal Church, as or-
ganized and established in the United States at the time of the foun-
dation of the fund; and that, as the complainants, and those they
represent, are not shown to be traveling preachers in that connection,
but traveling preachers in connection with a different ecclesiastical
organization, they have forfeited their right, and are no longer within
the description of its beneficiaries.

This argument, we apprehend, if it proves any thing, proves too
mouch; for if sound, the necessary consequences is that the beneficia-
ries connected with the Church, North, as well as South, have for-
feited their right to the fund. It can no more be affirmed, either in
point of fact or of law, that they are traveling preachers in connec-
tion with the Methodist Church as originally constituted, since the
division, than of those in connection with the Church, South. Their
organization covers but about half of the territory embraced within
that of the former Church; and includes within it but a little over
two-thirds of the traveling preachers. Their General Conference is
not the General Conference of the old Church, nor does it represent
the interest, or possess territorially the authority of the same; nor
are they the body under whose care this fund was placed by its foun-
ders. It may be admitted that, within the restricted limits, the or-
ganization and authority are the same as the former Church. But
the same is equally true in respect to the organization of the Church,
South.

Assuming, therefore, that this argument is well founded, the con-
sequence is that all the beneficiaries of the fund, whether in the
Southern or Northern division, are deprived of any right to a distri-
bution, not being in a condition to bring themselves within the de-
scription of persons for whose benefit it was established; in which
event the foundation of the fund would become broken up, and the
capital revert to the original proprietors, a result that would differ
very little in its effect from that sought to be produced by the com-
plainants in their bill.

It is insisted, however, that the General Conference of 1844 pos-
sessed no power to divide the Methodist Episcopal Church as then
organized, or to consent to such division ; and hence, that the organ-
ization of the Church, South, was without authority, and the travel-
ing preachers within it separated from an ecclesiastical connection
which is essential to enable them to participate as beneficiaries. Even
APPENDIX. 653

if this were admitted, we do not perceive that it would change the
relative position and rights of the traveling preachers within the
divisions North and South, from that which we have just endeavored
to explain. If the division under the direction of the General Con-
ference has been made without the proper authority, and for that
reason the traveling preachers within the Southern division are
wrongfully separated from their connection with the Church, and
thereby have lost the character of beneficiaries; those within the
Northern division are equally wrongfully separated from that con-
nection, as both divisions have been brought into existence by the
same authority. The same consequence would follow in respect to
them, that is imputable to the traveling preachers in the other divis-
ion, and hence each would be obliged to fall back upon their rights*
as original proprietors of the fund.

But we do not agree that this division was made without the proper
authority. On the contrary, we entertain no doubt but that the
General Conference of 1844 was competent to make it; and that each
division of the Church, under the separate organization, is just as
legitimate, and can claim as high a sanction, ecclesiastical and tem-
poral, as the Methodist Episcopal Church first founded in the United
States, The same authority which founded that Church in 1784 has
divided it, and established two separate and independent organiza-
tions, occupying the place of the old one.

In 1784, when this Church was first established, and down till
1808, the General Conference was composed of all the traveling
preachers in that connection. This body of preachers founded it by
organizing its government, ecclesiastical and temporal, established its
doctrines and discipline, appointed its Superintendents, or Bishops, its
ministers and preachers, and other subordinate authorities, to admin-
ister its polity, and promulgate its doctrines and teachings through-
out the land.

It cannot, therefore, be denied—indeed, it has scarcely been denied—
that this body, while composed of all the traveling preachers, pos-
sessed the power to divide it, and authorize the organization and es-
tablishment of the two separate independent Churches. The power
must necessarily be regarded as inherent in the General Conference.
As they might have constructed two ecclesiastical organizations over
the territory of the United States originally, if deemed expedient, in
the place of one, so they might, at any subsequent period, the power
remaining unchanged.

But it is insisted that this power has been taken away or given up

29*
654 APPENDIX.

by the action of the General Conference of 1808. In that year the
constitution of this body was changed so as tov be composed there-
after by traveling preachers, to be elected by the Annual Confer-
ences, in the ratio of one for every five members. This has been
altered from time to time, so that, in 1844, the representation was
one for every twenty-one members. At the time of this change, and
as part of it, certain limitations were imposed upon the powers of
this General Conference, called the six restrictive articles: 1. That
they should not alter or change the articles of religion, or establish
any new standard of doctrine. 2. Nor allow of more than one rep-
resentative for every fourteen members of the Annual Conferences,
nor less than one for every thirty. 3. Nor alter thg government so
as to do away with Episcopacy, or destroy the plan of itinerant su-
perintendencies. 4. Nor change the rules of the united societies. 5.
Nor deprive the ministers or preachers of trial by a committee, and
of appeal; nor members before the society, or lay committee, and ap-
peal. And 6. Nor appropriate the proceeds of the Book Concern,
nor the Charter Fund, to any purpose other than for the benefit of
the traveling, supernumerary, superannuated, and worn-out preach-
ers, their wives, widows, and children. Subject to these restrictions,
the delegated Conference possessed the same powers as when com-
posed of the entire body of preachers. And it will be seen that these
relate only to the doctrine of the Church, its representation in the
General Conference, the Episcopacy, discipline of its preachers and
members, the Book Concern and Charter Fund. In all other respects,
and in every thing else that concerns the welfare of the Church, the
General Conference represents the sovereign power the same as be-
fore. This is the view taken by the General Conference itself, as
exemplified by the usage and practice of that body. In 1820, they
set off to the British Conference of Wesleyan Methodists the several
circuits and societies in Lower Canda. And in 1828, they separated
the Annual Conference of Upper Canada from their jurisdiction, and
erected the same into a distinct and independent Church. These in-
stances, together with the present division, in 1844, furnish evidence
of the opinions of the eminent and experienced men of this Church
in these several Conferences, of the power claimed, which, if the
question was otherwise doubtful, should be regarded as decisive in
favor of it. We will add, that all the Northern Bishops, five in num-
ber, in council in July, 1845, acting under the Plan of Separation,
regarded it as of binding obligation, and conformed their action ac-
cordingly.
APPENDIX. 655

It has also been urged, on the part of the defendants, that the di-
vision of the Church, according to the Plan of the Separation, was
made to depend not only upon the determination of the Southern
Annual Conferences, but also upon the consent of the Annual Con-
ferences, North, as well as South, to a change of the sixth restrictive

.article; and as this was refused, the division which took place was
unauthorized. But this is a misapprehension. The change of this
article was not made w condition of the division. That depended
alone upon the decision of the Southern Conferences.

The division of the Methodist Episcopal Church having thus taken
place, in pursuance of the proper authority, it carried with it, as
matter of law, a division of the common property belonging to the
ecclesiastical organizations and especially of the property in this
Book Concern, which belonged to the traveling preachers. It would
be strange if it could be otherwise, as it respects the Book Concern,
inasmuch as the division of the association was effected under the
authority of a body of preachers who were themselves the proprie-
tors and founders of the fund.

it has been argued, however, that, according to the Plan of Separa-
tion, the division of the property in this Book Concern was made to
depend upon the vote of the Annual Conferences to change the sixth
restrictive article, and that, whatever might be the legal effect of
the division of the Church upon the common property otherwise,
this stipulation controls it, and prevents a division till the consent is
obtained.

We do not so understand the Plan of Separation. It admits the
right of the Church, South, to its share of the common property, in
case of a separation, and provides for a partition of it among the two
divisions, upon just and equitable principles; but, regarding the sixth
restrictive article as a limitation upon the power of the General Con-
ference, as it respected a division of the property in the Book Con-
cern, provision is made to obtain a removal of it. The removal
of this limitation is not a condition to the right of the Church,
South, to its share of the property, but is a step taken in order to
enable the General Conference to complete the partition of the prop-
erty.

We will simply add that, as a division of the common property
followed, as matter of law, a division of the Church-organization,
nothing short of an agreement or stipulation of the Church, South,
to give up their share of it, could preclude the assertion of their right;
and, it is quite clear, no such agreement or stipulation is to be found
656 APPENDIX.

in the Plan of Separation. The contrary intent is manifest from a
perusal of it.

Without pursuing the case farther, our conclusion is, that the com-
plainants, and those they represent, are entitled to their share of the
property in this Book Concern. And the proper decree will be en-
tered to carry this decision into effect. .

The complainants represent not only all the beneficiaries in the
division of the Church, South, but also the General Conference and
the Annual Conferences of the same. The share, therefore, of this
Book Concern belonging to the beneficiaries in that Church, and
which its authorities are entitled to the safe keeping and charge of,
for their benefit, may be properly paid over to the complainants as
the authorized agents for this purpose.

We shall accordingly direct a decree to be entered, reversing the
decree of the court below, and remanding the proceedings to that
court, directing a decree to be entered for the complainants against
the defendants; and a reference of the case to a master to take an
account of the property belonging to the Book Concern, and report
to the court its cash value, and to ascertain the portion belonging to
the complainants, which portion shall bear to the whole amount of
the fund the proportion that the traveling preachers in the division
of the Church, South, bore to the traveling preachers in the Church,
North, at the time of the division of said Church. And on the coming
in of the report, and confirmation of the same, a decree shall be en-
tered in favor of the complainants for that amount.

Order. This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the
record, from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District
of Ohio, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof it
is ordered, adjudged, and decreed by this court that the decree of
said Circuit Court in this cause be, and the same is hereby, reversed
and annulled. And this court doth farther find, adjudge, and de-
cree:

1. That, under the resolutions of the General Conference of the
Methodist Episcopal Church, holden at the city of New York, accord-
ing to the usage and Discipline of said Church, passed on the eighth
day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred
and forty-four (in the pleadings. mentioned), it was, among other
things, and in virtue of the power of the said General Conference,
well agreed and determined by the Methodist Episcopal Church in
the United States of America, as then existing, that, in case the An-
nual Conferences in the slaveholding States should find it necessary
APPENDIX. 657

to unite in a distinct ecclesiastical connection, the ministers, local and
traveling, of every grade and office, in the Methodist Episcopal
Church, might attach themselves to such ‘new ecclesiastical connec-
tion, without blame.

2. That the said Annual Conferences in the slaveholding States did
find and determine that it was right, expedient, and necessary to
erect the Annual Conferences last aforesaid into a distinct ecclesias-
tical connection, based upon the Discipline of the Methodist Episco-
pal Church aforesaid, comprehending the doctrines and entire moral
and ecclesiastical rules and regulations of the said Discipline (except
only in so far as verbal alterations might be necessary to, or for a
distinct organization), which new ecclesiastical connection was to be
known by the name and style of the Methodist Episcopal Church,
South; and that the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, was duly
organized under said resolutions of the said General Conference, and
the said decision of said Annual Conferences last aforesaid, in a Con-
vention thereof held at Louisville, in the State of Kentucky, in the
month of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred
and forty-five.

8. That, by force of the said resolutions of June the eighth, eighteen
hundred and forty-four, and of the authority and power of the said
General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church as then ex-
isting, by which the same were adopted, and by virtue of the said
finding and determination of the said Annual Conferences in the
slaveholding States therein mentioned, and by virtue of the organ-
ization of such Conferences into a distinct ecclesiastical connection
as last aforesaid, the religious association known as the Methodist
Episcopal Church in the United States of America as then existing,
was divided into two associations or distinct Methodist Episcopal
Churches, as in the bill of complaint is alleged.

4, That the property denominated the Methodist Book Concern at
Cincinnati, in the pleadings mentioned, was, at the time of said di-
vision, and immediately before, a fund subject to the following use
—that is to say, that the profits arising therefrom, after retaining a
sufficient capital to carry on the business thereof, were to be regu-
larly applied toward the support of the deficient traveling, supernu-
merary, superannuated, and worn-out preachers of the Methodist
Episcopal Church, their wives, widows, and children, according to
the rules and discipline of said Church; and that the said fund and
property are held under the act of incorporation in the said answer,
mentioned by the said defendants, Leroy Swormstedt and John H.
658 APPENDIX.

Power, as agents of said Book Concern, and in trust for the purposes
’ thereof. 3

5. That,.in virtue of the said division of said Methodist Episcopal
Church in the United States, the deficient traveling, supernumerary,
superannuated, and worn-out preachers, their wives, widows, and
children comprehended in, or in connection with, the Methodist Epis-
copal Church, South, were, are, and continue to be, beneficiaries of the
said Book Concern to the same extent, and as fully as if the said di-
vision had not taken place, and in the same manner and degree as
persons of the same description who are comprehended in, or in con-
nection with, the other association, denominated* since the division
of the Methodist Episcopal Church ; and that as well the principal as
the profits of said Book Concern, since said division, should of right
be administered and managed by the respective General and Annual
Conferences of the said two associations and Churches, under the
separate organizations thereof, and according to the shares or propor-
tions of the same as hereinafter mentioned, and in conformity with
the rules and discipline of said respective associations, so as to carry
out the purposes and trusts aforesaid.

6. That so much of the capital and property of said Book Concern
at Cincinnati, wherever situate, and so much of the produce and
profits thereof as may not have been heretofore accounted for to said
Church, South, in the New York case hereinafter mentioned, or other-
wise, shall be paid to said Church, South, according to the rate and
proportions following—that is to say, in respect to the capital, such
share or part as corresponds with the proportion which the number
of the traveling preachers in the Annual Conferences which formed
themselves into the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, bore to the
number of all the traveling preachers of the Methodist Episcopal
Church before the division thereof, which numbers shall be fixed
and ascertained as they are shown by the minutes of the several
Annual Conferences next preceding the said division and new
organization in the month of May, A.D. eighteen hundred and
forty-five. 7

And in respect to the produce or profits, such share or part as the
number of Annual Conferences which formed themselves into the
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, bore, at the time of said divis-
ion, in May, A.D. 1845, to the whole number of Annual Conferences

 

* We presume there is an omission in the Report of the words, “the Meth-
odist Episcopal Church.”—A. H. R.,
APPENDIX. 659

then being in the Methodist Episcopal Church, excluding the Liberia
Conference; so that the division or apportionment of said produce
and profits shall be had by Conferences, and not by numbers of the
traveling preachers. -

7, That said payment of capital and profits, according to the ratios
of apportionment so declared, shall be made and paid to the said
Smith, Parsons, and Green, as commissioners aforesaid, or their suc-
cessors, on behalf of said Church, South, and the beneficiaries therein,
or to such other person or persons as may be thereto authorized by
the General Conference of said Church, South, the same to be subse-
quently managed and administered so as to carry out the trusts and
uses aforesaid, according to the Discipline-of said Church, South, and
the regulations of the General Conference thereof.

8, And in order more fully to carry out the matters hereinbefore
settled and adjudged, it is farther ordered and decreed that this cause
be remanded to the said Circuit Court for farther proceedings—that
is to say,

That the same be referred to a master to take and state an account
as follows:

1. Of the amount and value of the said Book Concern at Cincin-
nati, on the first day of May, 1845, and of what specific property
and effects (according to a general description or classification thereof)
the same then consisted, whether composed of real or personal estate,
and of whatever nature or description the same may have been;
and u similar account as of the date or time when the said master
shall take this account.

2. Of the produce and profits of said Book Concern from the time
of the General Conference of May, 1844, as reported thereto (if so
reported), up to the time of the said division in May, 1845, and from
the last-mentioned date down to the time of making up his report:
specifying how much of said profits and produce have been trans-
ferred to said Book Concern at New York, and accounted for to said
Church, South, in the settlement of the case there; and how much
remains to be accounted for to said Church, South, on the basis set-
tled by this decree.

And in taking said accounts, and in the execution of said reference,
the said defendants shall produce, on oath, all deeds, accounts, books
of account, instruments, reports, letters, and copies of letters, memo-
randa, documents, and writings whatever, pertinent to said reference,
in their possession or control, and the said defendants may be ex-
amined, on oath, on the said reference; and each party may produce
660 APPENDIX.

evidence before the master, and have process to compel the attend-
ance of witnesses.

And the said master is farther directed, in respect to any annual
profits of said Concern, not heretofore accounted for to said Church,
South, to allow 1o said Church, South, interest at the rate of 6 per
cent. upon such unpaid balances from the date at which the same
ought to have been paid:

And in respect to all the costs in this case, including the costs of
the reference, and all other costs from the commencement of the case
until its conclusion, and in respect to the fees of counsel and solicit-
ors therein, of both parties, so far as the same may be reasonable,
and in respect of just and necessary expenses, as well of plaintiffs as
of defendants in conducting the suit, the same ought to be paid out
of said Book Concern, and a common charge thereon, before appor-
tionment and division, and the master is accordingly directed to
allow and pay the same to the respective parties entitled thereto,
and then to apportion the residue according to the principles fixed in
this decree.

And the master is farther directed to return his report to the said
Circuit Court with all convenient dispatch, which court shall then
proceed to enforce the payment of whatever sum or sums may be
found due to said Church, South, on the confirmation of the master’s
report, in such installments as may be by said court adjudged reason-
able, each party having due opportunity of excepting to the master’s
report; and all questions arising upon said report, and not settled by
this decree, may be’ moved before said Circuit Court, to which court
either party shall be at liberty to apply on the footing of this decree.

17 H. 591; 18 H. 480.

THE END.