FRED LOCKLEY 
 
 RARE WESTERN BOOKS 
 
 4227 S. E. Stark St. 
 PORTLAND. ORE. 
 
7s- 
 
A HISTORY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT 
 
 OF THE 
 
 GOVERNING CONFERENCE 
 
 * 
 
 IN METHODISM, 
 
 AND ESPECIALLY OF THE 
 
 GENERAL CONFERENCE OF THE METHODIST 
 EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 
 
 BY 
 
 REV. THOMAS B. NEELY, D.D., Ph.D.. LLD., 
 
 AUTHOR OF 
 
 'The Evolution of Episcopacy and Organic Methodism;" " Parliament- 
 ary Practice;" "Young Workers in the Church;" 
 "The Church Lyceum," Etc. 
 
 CINCINNATI: CRANSTON & STOWE. 
 
 NEW YORK: HUNT & EATON. 
 
 1892. 
 
Copyright 
 
 BY CRANSTON & STOWE, 
 1898. 
 
TO 
 
 0f mg 
 
 MR. THOMAS NEELY, 
 
 from whom I first learned the principles of 
 METHODIST POLITY, 
 
 whose upright character and useful life as a citizen 
 and as an official in the Church 
 
 caused him, when living, 
 
 to be highly respected, and since his death to be 
 lovingly remembered by all who knew him, 
 
 THIS BOOK IS 
 
 M19G306 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 THE reason for many peculiarities in ecclesiastical 
 economy must be sought in the circumstances 
 connected with their crystallization and incorporation. 
 A knowledge of their history is absolutely necessary 
 if we would understand their intention ; for, in many 
 instances, an uuhistorical interpretation of the lan- 
 guage of a law will give it a false meaning. 
 
 The time has arrived for a re-study of the fun- 
 damental principles of the ecclesiastical polity of 
 Methodism. The early generations have passed 
 away; and the records of facts connected with the 
 ecclesiastical beginnings are scattered in many books, 
 manuscripts, fugitive productions, and fragmentary 
 utterances. These should be collated, and logically 
 arranged. 
 
 In a former book, entitled "The Evolution of 
 Episcopacy and Organic Methodism," * we gave a 
 study of the Methodist Episcopate, and of the initi- 
 ation and development of organic Methodism. In 
 the present work we trace the Conference idea from 
 the first Conference, held by the Rev. John Wesley 
 
 * Published by Hunt & Eaton, New York, 1888. 
 
vi PREFACE. 
 
 in 1744, down to the Conferences of the present 
 time. We study the English Conferences down to 
 the period immediately following Mr. Wesley's death 
 in 1791; and then, starting with the beginning of 
 American Methodism, we show the growth of the Con- 
 ference idea until it develops into the delegated Gen- 
 eral Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church ; 
 and, finally, point out the various changes that have 
 been made in the constitution of the General Con- 
 ference down to 1888. 
 
 The General Conference of to-day is an evolution 
 from a crude beginning. To trace its development 
 is to reveal the fundamental principles of the polity 
 and general history of Methodism. The study is of 
 vast importance, and should be of great interest to 
 every member, as well as every minister. 
 
 Trusting that this contribution to the study of 
 the history and constitutional law of the Church may 
 be of service in the solution of historical and consti- 
 tutional questions, this book is now submitted to 
 
 the public. 
 
 T. B. NEELY. 
 PHILADELPHIA, PA., March 23, 1892. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 PAGK 
 WESLEY'S CONFERENCES, 1 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 WESLEy's EARLY PLANS FOR PERPETUATING BRITISH METH- 
 ODISM, AND ENDOWING THE CONFERENCE WITH POWER, . 20 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 WESLEY'S FINAL PLAN FOR PERPETUATING AND EMPOWERING 
 THE CONFERENCE, 44 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 THE EARLY AMERICAN CONFERENCES DOWN TO 1777, .... 82 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 THE AMERICAN CONFERENCES FROM 1778 TO 1781, 127 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 THE CONFERENCE IN AMERICA FROM 1782 TO 1784, 184 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 WESLEY'S PLAN FOR THE REORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN 
 METHODISM, 224 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 THE ORGANIZING CONFERENCE OF 1784, 236 
 
 VII 
 
viii CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 THE CONFERENCES FROM 1785 TO 1789, ........... 267 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 THE COUNCIL, ...................... 299 
 
 CHAPTER XL 
 THE QUADRENNIAL GENERAL CONFERENCE, ........ 318 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 THE DELEGATED GENERAL CONFERENCE, .......... 338 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 THE NATURE AND POWEQ OF THE DELEGATED GENERAL CON- 
 FERENCE, ...................... 374 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 CHANGES IN THE CONSTITUTION OF THE GENERAL CONFER- 
 ENCE FROM 1812 TO 1856, ............... 389 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 CHANGES IN THE CHAPTER ON THE GENERAL CONFERENCE 
 FROM 1856 TO 1868, .................. 413 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 CHANGES IN THE CONSTITUTION FROM 1868 TO 1888, ..... 421 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 CONDENSED CHANGES IN SECTION ON GENERAL CONFERENCE 
 FROM 1892 TO 1888, 447 
 
THE GOVERNING CONFERENCE 
 
 IN 
 
 METHODISM. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 WESLEY'S CONFERENCES. 
 
 T ORD MACAU LAY declared that John Wesley's 
 A ' a genius for government was not inferior to that 
 of Richelieu/' and time shows the statement was not 
 too strong. 
 
 His talent for organization manifested itself at an 
 early date. His executive force was felt in connec- 
 tion with the Holy Club at Oxford University and 
 in all the movements of the Oxford Methodists. In 
 his early ministry in Georgia his ability to govern was 
 rather intense. Some, indeed, might term it excess- 
 ive; but it is to be remembered that at that period 
 he was a High-Churchman, with much to unlearn as 
 well as learn. 
 
 He was prominent in the formation of the first 
 Moravian Society founded at Fetter Lane, London, 
 May 1, 1738. 1 His impulse to direct manifested itself 
 the same year 1738 in a set of rules which he drew 
 
 1 Tyerman's Life of John Wesley, Vol. I, p. 282. 
 
'2 l 'GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 up for the regulation of the Moravian Band Soci- 
 eties. 1 The natural bent of the Rev. John Wesley 
 toward organization appeared in a very marked man- 
 ner while he was associated with the Moravians. On 
 Monday, the 12th of November, 1739, Mr. Wesley 
 left London to return to Bristol. In the evening he 
 reached Wycornbe, where there was a little society, 
 and where he preached. He writes: 
 
 "Here we unexpectedly found Mr. Robson and Gambold, 
 with whom, after much prayer and consultation, we agreed: 
 1. To meet yearly at London, if- God permit, on the eve of As- 
 cension day. 2. To fix then the business to be done the ensu- 
 ing year where, when, and by whom. 3. To meet quarterly 
 there, as many as can; namely, on .the second Tuesday in 
 July, October, and January. 4. To send a monthly account 
 to one another of what God hath done in each of our 
 stations. 5. To inquire whether Mr. Hall, Sympson, Kogers, 
 Ingham, Hutchins, Kinchin, Stonehouse, Cennick, Oxlee, and 
 Brown will join us herein. 6. To consider whether there be 
 any others of our spiritual friends who are able and willing 
 so to do." 2 
 
 This was the first foreshadowing of the Confer- 
 ence idea, with its annual sessions, the quarterly meet- 
 ing, and the monthly review of the work. It was a 
 bold scheme of systematic and far-reaching activity. 
 
 As Dr. Whitehead, in his "Life of John Wesley," 
 observes : 
 
 " Plere we have the first outlines of a plan to unite the 
 ministers together, and to extend their labors to different 
 parts of the kingdom, under such regulations as might give 
 
 'Rules of Band Societies, 4th Ed., 1744. Luke Tyerman, Life of 
 John Wesley, Vol. I, p. 210. 
 
 2 Whitehead's Life of Wesley, Vol. II. p. 126. Dublin : John Joues. 
 1806. 
 
WESLEY'S CONFERENCES. 3 
 
 them a mutual dependence on one another. In this sketch 
 no one assumes an authority over the rest of his brethren 
 all appear equal. But this plan was never put into execution. 
 When Mr. Wesley separated from the Moravian brethren, 
 Mr. Gambold and some others gradually withdrew themselves 
 from him." l 
 
 The scheme, in this particular form, was never 
 carried out; for only a few weeks afterwards he with- 
 drew from the Moravians on account of their here- 
 sies and religious extravagances. Numbers who had 
 belonged to these societies also withdrew, and these, 
 with others, repaired to Mr. Wesley; and in the 
 latter part of the year 1739 he formed in London the 
 first Methodist society. 2 
 
 Thus, at the age of thirty-six, he was thrust out 
 as the leader of an independent movement, and his 
 status was changed. Before he was one among equals; 
 now he was recognized as the chief, whose will was 
 law; Society after society was formed, and by his 
 genius cemented into "The United Societies." 
 
 He attracted regular clergymen to his assistance, 
 and also raised up a lay ministry. In a few years his 
 preachers had increased to such numbers that Mr. 
 Wesley deemed it wise to invite them to meet him in 
 Conference, and his first "Yearly Conference" began 
 on the 25th of June, 1744. From that time until 
 his death, on the 2d of March, 1791, he held "Con- 
 ferences" annually, making forty-seven in all. 
 
 The most of the ministers who met Mr. Wesley 
 on these occasions were lay preachers, but some of 
 
 i W T hitehead's Life of John Wesley, Vol. II, pp. 126, 127, Dublin Ed. 
 STyerman, Life of Wesley, Vol. I, p. 282. 
 
4 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 them were regularly ordained clergymen of the Church 
 of England. 
 
 No one had any inherent right to attend these 
 Conferences, as they were composed, not of all the 
 preachers, but only of those Mr. Wesley "invited to 
 confer" with him. They met him, not by natural or 
 acquired right, but by permission. " Mr. Wesley at 
 first invited all the assistants 1 to meet him, but after- 
 wards only a select number; and he gave the name 
 Conference, not to what was said, but to the persons 
 assembled." 2 On March 3, 1785, Mr. Wesley gave a 
 condensed history of the origin and development of 
 the Conference idea in these words: 
 
 " In June, 1744, I desired my brother and a few clergy- 
 men to meet me in London, to consider how we should pro- 
 ceed to save our own souls and those that heard us. After 
 some time, I invited the lay preachers that were in the house 
 to meet with us. We conferred together for several days, and 
 were much comforted and strengthened thereby. 
 
 "The next year I not only invited most of the traveling 
 preachers, but several others to confer with me in Bristol. 
 And from that time for some years, though I invited only a 
 part of the traveling preachers, yet I permitted any that de- 
 sired it to be present? not apprehending any ill consequences 
 therefrom. 
 
 "Bat two ill consequences soon appearedone , that the 
 expense was too great to be borne ; the other, that many of 
 our people were scattered while they were left without a shep- 
 herd. I therefore determined: (1) That, for the time to 
 come, none should be present but those whom I invited ; 
 
 1 An assistant was defined in the Large Minutes of 1770 as "that 
 preacher in each circuit who is appointed from time to time to take 
 charge of the societies and the other preachers therein." He was the 
 superintendent, so to speak, of the preachers and preaching-places on 
 the circuit. 
 
 2 Peirce's Wesleyau Polity, 3d Ed., p. 448. 
 
WESLEY'S CONFERENCES. 5 
 
 and (2) that I would only invite a select number out of every 
 circuit. 
 
 "This I did for many years, and all that time the term 
 Conference meant not so much the conversation we had to- 
 gether as the persons that conferred; namely, those whom I 
 invited to confer with me from time to time. So that all this 
 time it depended on me alone, not only what persons should 
 constitute the Conference, but whether there should be any 
 Conference at all this lay wholly in my own breast neither 
 the preachers nor the people having any part or lot in the 
 matter." 1 
 
 The first Conference began on Monday, June 25, 
 1744, and continued the five following days, and was 
 held in the Foundry, London. It consisted of the 
 Rev. John Wesley; Rev. Charles Wesley; Rev. John 
 Hodges, rector of Wenro ; Rev. Henry Piers, vicar of 
 Bexley; Rev. Samuel Taylor, vicar of Quinton; and 
 Rev. John Merit-on, of the Isle of Man ; all of whom 
 had been regularly ordained in the State Church. 2 
 There were also four lay preachers; namely, Thomas 
 Richards, Thomas Maxfield, John Ben net, and John 
 Downes. 3 
 
 The day before the Conference commenced, besides 
 the ordinary preaching services, a love-feast was held, 
 at which six ordained ministers were present, and the 
 sacrament was administered to the whole of the 
 London society, now numbering between two and 
 three thousand members, and at this grand sacra- 
 
 1 "Thoughts upon Some Late Occurrences," Wesley's Works, Vol. 
 VII, p. 309, Amer. Ed. 
 
 2 Wesley's Works Conversation I, Vol. V, p. 194, Amer. Ed. 
 Smith's History of Methodism, Vol. I, p. 227; William Myles, 
 
 Chronological History of the Methodists, London, 1803, 3d Ed., p. 22. 
 
6 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 mental service, five regularly ordained clerygmen of 
 the Established Church assisted. 1 
 
 The Conference was opened with solemn prayer, 
 a sermon by Charles Wesley, and the baptism of an 
 adult, who, it is recorded, there and then found peace 
 with God. 2 
 
 Not pausing to dwell upon the fact that even at 
 that early day the Methodists received the sacraments 
 outside the consecrated Churches of the Establish- 
 ment, we proceed to notice the Conference itself. 
 The Rev. William Myles, one of Wesley's preachers, 
 and an intimate friend of the founder of Methodism, 
 tells us: "The subjects of their deliberations were 
 proposed in the form of questions, which were amply 
 discussed, and, with the answers, written down and 
 afterward printed under the title of 'Minutes of 
 Several Conversations Between the Reverend Mr. 
 Wesley and Others/ but now commonly called ' The 
 Minutes of the Conference/" 3 
 
 Mr. Wesley opened the proceedings of his first 
 Conference with the following introduction : 
 
 "It is desired that all things be considered as in the im- 
 mediate presence of God; that we meet with a single eye 
 and as little children, who have everything to learn; that 
 every point which is proposed may be examined to the foun- 
 dation ; that every person may speak freely whatever is in 
 his heart; and tint every question which may arise should 
 be thoroughly debated and settled. 
 
 " Q. Need we be fearful of doing this? What are we 
 
 Tyerman's Life of Weslej', Vol. I, p. 443. 
 "Charles Wesley's Journal, Vol. I, p. 367. 
 
 s William Myles, Chronological History of the People called Meth. 
 odists, London, 3d Ed., 1803, p. 23. 
 
WESLEY'S CONFERENCES. 7 
 
 afraid of? Of overturning our first principles? A. If they 
 are false, the sooner they are overturned the better. If they 
 are true, they will bear the strictest examination. Let us all 
 pray for a willingness to receive light, to know of every doc- 
 trine whether it be of God. 
 
 " Q. How may the time of the Conference be made more 
 eminently a time of watching unto prayer. A. 1. While we 
 are conversing, let us have an especial care to set God always 
 before us. 2. In the intermediate hours let us visit none but 
 the sick, and spend all the time that remains in retirement. 
 3. Let us therein give ourselves to prayer for one another, and 
 for a blessing upon our labor. 
 
 " Q. How far does each of us agree to submit to the judg- 
 ment of the majority? A. In speculative, things, each can 
 only submit so far as his judgment shall be convinced. In 
 every practical point, each will submit so far as he can without 
 wounding his conscience. 
 
 " Q. Can a Christian submit any farther than this to any 
 man, or number of men upon earth? A. It is undeniably 
 certain he can not; either to Bishop, Convocation, or General 
 Council. And this is that grand principle of private judgment 
 on which all the reformers proceeded, ' Every man must judge 
 for himself ; because every man must give an account of him- 
 self to God.' " l 
 
 The principles Wesley thus proposed to his first 
 Conference, composed of six regularly ordained 
 clergymen and four traveling lay preachers, were ex- 
 tremely liberal and courageous. They were foun- 
 dation principles, not only of that Conference, but of 
 genuine Methodism. They proclaimed the duty of a 
 free, fearless, and full investigation, which would lead 
 to the truth, even if error must be eliminated from 
 former views; and they also maintained the right of 
 private judgment even against combined or concen- 
 trated authority, while the suggestions as to practical 
 
 iMyles, Hist, of Meiliodism, 1803, 3d E'J., pp. 23, 24. 
 
8 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 conduct during the session might be practiced to ad- 
 vantage by other religious bodies. 
 
 With Wesley's recommendation, "that every 
 question proposed may be fully debated and ' bolted 
 to the bran/ " l the Conference proceeded to discuss 
 three points, namely: " 1. What to teach? 2. How 
 to teach? 3. What to do? that is, how to regulate 
 doctrine, discipline, and practice." 2 
 
 These inquiries covered doctrine, discipline, and 
 general economy, including methods of teaching and 
 modes of executing discipline. Under these general 
 heads many questions were propounded and answers 
 formulated, so that the Minutes of the Conferences 
 appeared in the form of question and answer. In 
 this way, in the course of years, the discipline of 
 Methodism was gradually developed from the simple 
 elements that existed at the beginning. 
 
 That questions of discipline must have occupied 
 much of Wesley's attention at this time is evident 
 from a note which he makes in his Journal shortly 
 after the adjournment of this Conference. He says: 
 
 "The next week we endeavored to purge the society of all 
 that did not walk according to the gospel. By this means we 
 reduced the number of members to less than nineteen hun- 
 dred. But number is an inconsiderable circumstance. May 
 God increase them in faith and love !" 3 
 
 In course of time, the order of business in the 
 Conference became more regular, as well as more 
 
 1 Minutes, 1744, Vol. I, p. 22; Peirce's Polity of Wesleyan Methodists, 
 London, 1873, 3d Ed., p. 446. 
 
 2 Wesley's Works, Amer. Ed., Vol. VI, p. 194, Minutes of Convcr- 
 Bation I ; Myles, History, p. 24. 
 
 3 Wesley's Journal, Wks., Vol. Ill, p. 317, Amer. Ed. 
 
WESLEY'S CONFERENCES. 9 
 
 elaborate, so that " The Large Minutes" give us the 
 following form : 
 
 " Q. 52. What is the method wherein we usually proceed 
 in our Conferences ? 
 
 " A. We inquire, 1. What preachers are admitted ? Who 
 remain on trial? Who are admitted on trial? Who desist 
 from traveling? 2. Are there any objections to any of the 
 preachers, who are named one by one ? 3. How are the 
 preachers stationed this year? 4. What numbers are in the 
 Society? 5. What is the Kingswood collection? 6. What 
 boys are received this year? 7. What girls are assisted? 
 8. What is contributed for the contingent expenses ? 9. How 
 was this expended? 10. What is contributed toward the fund 
 for superannuated and supernumerary preachers? 11. What 
 demands are there upon it? 12. How many preachers' wives 
 are to be provided for? By what societies? 13. Where and 
 when may our next Conference begin ?"* 
 
 It is easily seen how these questions would at 
 that day draw out every point connected with the 
 condition of the Methodist Societies, as they touched 
 the ministry, the membership, the benevolences, and 
 the cause of education ; and it is manifest that this 
 interrogatory order of business was the basis of the 
 order which is still used in the conduct of the Con- 
 ference work in the United States, as well as in British 
 Methodism. 
 
 Mr. Wesley encouraged those who were members 
 of the Conferences to express their judgment with the 
 greatest freedom. But let it not be supposed that 
 the Conferences which Mr. Wesley called had any 
 governing power. The members of the Conference 
 
 1 Large Minutes of Conference, printed 1770; Whitehead's Life of 
 Wesley, Vol. II, p. 308, Dublin Ed., 1806; Wesley's Works, Large Min- 
 utes, Vol. V, p. 231. 
 
 2 
 
10 GOVERNING CONFKRKNCK IN METHODISM. 
 
 discussed, but Mr. Wesley decided. They debated, 
 but he determined. Mr. Wesley was the government; 
 and, though he invited the preachers to confer with 
 him, he did not propose to abandon any of his original 
 power. They had a voice by his permission, but he 
 reserved the right to direct. 
 
 After the lapse of years his course was criticised, 
 so that he deemed it necessary in 1766, about twenty- 
 two years after the first Conference was held, to issue 
 an explanation. 
 
 Reviewing the history of the Conferences, he 
 said : 
 
 " In 1744 I wrote to several clergymen, and to all who 
 then served me as sons in the gospel, desiring them to meet 
 me in London, to give me their advice concerning the hest 
 method of carrying on the work of God. They did not desire 
 this meeting; but I did, knowing that 'in a multitude of coun- 
 selors there is safety.' And when their number increased, so 
 that it was neither needful nor convenient to invite them all, 
 for several years I wrote to those with whom I desired to con- 
 fer; and these only met at the place appointed, till at length 
 I gave a general permission that all who desired it might 
 come. Observe! I myself sent for these, of my own free 
 choice ; arid I sent for them to advise, not govern me. Neither 
 did I at any of those times divest myself of any part of that 
 power above described, which the providence of God had cast 
 upon me without any design or choice of mine. What is that 
 power? It is a power of admitting into and excluding from 
 the societies under my care ; of choosing arid removing stew- 
 ards; of receiving or of not receiving helpers; of appointing 
 them when, where, and .how to help me ; and of desiring any 
 of them to meet me when I see good. And as it was merely 
 in obedience to the providence of God and for the good of the 
 people that I at first accepted this power, which I never 
 sought nay, a hundred times labored to throw off so it is 
 on the same considerations, not for profit, honor, or pleasure, 
 
WESLEY'S CONFERENCES. 11 
 
 that I use it at this day. But several gentlemen are much 
 offended at my having so much power. My answer to them 
 is this: 
 
 "'I did not seek any part of this power; it came upon 
 me unawares. But when it was come, not daring to bury that 
 talent, I used it to the best of my judgment; yet I never was 
 fond of it. I always did, and do now, bear it as my burden 
 the burden which God lays upon me and therefore I dare 
 not yet lay it down.' But if you can tell me any one or any 
 five men to whom I may transfer this burden, who can and 
 will do just what I do now, I will heartily thank both them 
 and you. 
 
 "But some of our helpers 1 say, ' This is shackling free-born 
 Englishmen,' and demand a free Conference ; that is, a meeting 
 of all the preachers, wherein all things shall be determined by 
 most votes. 
 
 "I answer: 'It is possible, after my death, something of 
 this kind may take place;' but not while I live. To me the 
 preachers have engaged themselves to submit to serve me as 
 sons in the gospel. But they are not thus engaged to any 
 man, or number of men, beside. To me the people in gen- 
 eral will submit. But they will not yet submit to any 
 other.' 
 
 " It is nonsense, then, to call my using this power ' shack- 
 ling free-born Englishmen.' None needs to submit to it un- 
 less he will ; so there is no shackling in the case. Every 
 preacher and every member may leave me when he pleases. 
 But while he chooses to stay, it is on the same terms that he 
 joined me at first. 
 
 " ' But this is arbitrary power; this is no less than making 
 yourself a pope.' 
 
 " If by arbitrary power you mean a power which I exer- 
 cise singly, without any colleagues therein, this is certainly 
 true ; but I see no hurt in it. Arbitrary in this sense is a very 
 harmless word. If you mean unjust, unreasonable, or tyran- 
 nical, then it is not true. 
 
 "As to the other branch of the charge, it carries no face 
 
 *A "helper" was a preacher on a circuit, but subordinate to the 
 assistaut." 
 
12 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 of truth. The pope affirms that every Christian must do all 
 he bids, and believe all he says, under pain of damnation I 
 never affirmed anything that bears any the most distant re- 
 semblance to this. All I affirm is: 'The preachers who 
 choose to labor with me, choose to serve me as sons in the 
 gospel;' and 'the people who choose to be under my care, 
 choose to be so on the same terms they were at first.' 
 
 "Therefore all talk of this kind is highly injurious to me, 
 who bear this burden merely for your sakes. And it is ex- 
 ceedingly mischievous to the people, tending to confound their 
 understandings, and to fill their hearts with evil surmisings 
 and unkind tempers towards me, to whom they really owe 
 more for taking all this load upon me, for exercising this 
 very power, for shackling myself in this manner than for all 
 my preaching put together; because preaching twice or thrice 
 a day is no burden to me at all, but the care of all the preachers 
 and all the people is a burden indeed." l 
 
 Again, in a letter written January, 1780, Mr. 
 Wesley once more explains the situation, and defends 
 himself as follows: 
 
 " It pleased God by me to awaken first my brother, and 
 then a few others, who severally desired of me, as a favor, 
 that I would direct them in all things. After my return from 
 Georgia, many were both awakened and converted to God. 
 One and another and another of these desired to join with 
 me as sons in the gospel, to be directed by me. I drew up a 
 few plain rules (observe, there was no Conference in being!) 
 and permitted them to join me on these conditions. Who- 
 ever, therefore, violates these conditions, particularly that of 
 being directed by me in the work, does, ipso facto [by the act 
 itself], disjoin himself from me. This, Brother M. has done; 
 but he can not see that he has done amiss, and he would 
 have it a common cause; that is, he would have all the 
 preachers do the same. He thinks 'they have a right so to 
 do.' So they have. They have a right to disjoin themselves 
 
 1 Minutes, 1776, Vol. I, pp. 61, 62; Peirce's Wesleyau Polity, pp. 
 447, 448 ; Wesley's Works, Amer. Ed., Vol. 5, pp. 220-222. 
 
WESLEY'S CONFERENCES. 13 
 
 from me whenever they please ; but they can not, in the na- 
 ture of the thing, join with me any longer than they are di- 
 rected by me. And what if fifty of the present preachers 
 disjoin themselves? What should I lose thereby? Only a 
 great deal of labor and care, which I do not seek, but endure 
 because no one else can or will. 
 
 "You seem likewise to have quite a wrong idea of a Con- 
 ference. For above six years after my return to England 
 there was no such thing. I then desired some of our preachers 
 to meet me, in order to advise, not control me. And, you 
 may observe, they had no power at all but what I exercised 
 through them. I chose to exercise the power which God had 
 given me in this manner, both to avoid ostentation and 
 gently to habituate the people to obey them when I should 
 be taken from their head. But as long as I remain with them, 
 the fundamental rule of Methodism remains inviolate. As 
 long as any preacher joins with me, he is to be directed by 
 me in his work. Do not you see, then, that Brother M., what- 
 ever his intentions might be, acted as wrong as wrong could 
 be ; and that the f representing of this as the common cause 
 of the preachers was the way to common destruction the way 
 to turn all their heards and to set them in arms? It was a 
 blow at the very root of Methodism. I could not, therefore, do 
 less than I did ; it was the very least that could be done, for 
 fear that evil should spread. 
 
 "I do not willingly speak of these things at all, but I do 
 it now out of necessity ; because I perceive the mind of you 
 and some others is a little hurt by not seeing them in a true 
 light." 1 
 
 It was quite natural, after many years had 
 passed, that preachers who had entered the ministry 
 at a remote period from the early days and primitive 
 conditions would feel a little restive in view of the 
 fact that, though members of the Conference, they 
 had no power of self-government, and it w r ould not 
 have been unnatural for some who had been with 
 
 i Wesley's Works, Amer. Ed., Vol. VII, p. 228. 
 
14 GOVERNING CONFKRKNCE IN MKTHODISM. 
 
 Mr. Wesley from the early days to think the con- 
 ditions had so changed that there could, with safety, 
 be a division of power. 
 
 On the other hand, it was quite as natural and 
 logical for Mr. Wesley to reason as he did. It was 
 his movement, and the people and preachers had 
 voluntarily asked him to assume the sphere of ruler- 
 ship. He felt that the responsibility for the success 
 of the movement was upon him, and he saw no way 
 of shifting that responsibility which would have been 
 satisfactory to the preachers and people, and which 
 at the same time would have insured the success of the 
 cause. On his theory he need not have held any Con- 
 ference, and his call for a Conference was really a con- 
 cession; and, as he remarks, he "sent for them to ad- 
 vise, not govern him." He was willing' to confer 
 with them that he might gain valuable suggestions 
 from their discussions, but he did not propose that 
 the preachers in the Conference should " control " 
 him. He was under no obligation to have a Confer- 
 ence at all; but, like a wise general, he called a coun- 
 cil of his officers, listened to their ideas, and then 
 issued his orders for the campaign of the year im- 
 mediately following. 
 
 In the remarks just quoted, Wesley indicates his 
 desire to place the burden of power upon others, but 
 he does not see how it can be done, and therefore 
 says: "I dare not yet lay it down." He also sug- 
 gests that after his death power might be reposed in 
 the Conference of all the preachers, who should deter- 
 mine their action by a majority vote. 
 
WESLEY'S CONFERENCES. 15 
 
 Speaking of the power which he exercised through 
 those who composed the Conference, it is to be ob- 
 served that he says : " I chose to exercise the 
 power which God had given me in this manner, both 
 to avoid ostentation, and gently to habituate the 
 people to obey them when I should be taken from 
 their head/' so that he was preparing the preachers 
 and people for a time when, death having released 
 him from his responsibility, the power which he had 
 possessed would be 'lodged in the Conference of 
 ministers. For the present, however, he believed 
 that it was absolutely essential to the existence of 
 Methodism that the power of government should be 
 exerted by him, for he said: "To me the people in 
 general will submit. But they will not submit to 
 any other." In a document which Mr. Wesley pub- 
 lished in 1790 appears the following passage : 
 
 " As the number of preachers increased, it grew more and 
 more difficult to fix the places where each should labor from 
 time to time. I have often wished to transfer the work of 
 stationing the preachers once a year to one or more of them- 
 selves. But none were willing to accept of it; so I must bear 
 the burden till my warfare shall be accomplished.'* 1 
 
 In course of years Wesley not only had his Con- 
 ference, but also what has been called his "select 
 committee of consultation," 2 which was composed of 
 a favored few, upon whom he felt he could place 
 special reliance. It was, indeed, a sort of cabinet or 
 private council, where, perhaps, there was greater 
 freedom of speech than was deemed judicious in the 
 
 i Wesley's Works, Amer. Ed., Vol. VII, p. 330. 
 "Tyerman's Life of Wesley, Vol. Ill, p. 428. 
 
16 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 larger body; but even here it would appear that 
 Wesley reserved the right to act according to his own 
 judgment, no matter what might be the views of his 
 confidential counselors. 
 
 These facts show that while Mr. Wesley refused 
 to abandon the power which he possessed at the be- 
 ginning, nevertheless he made various concessions, 
 and actually proposed to divest himself of some of 
 his power, and transfer it to others during his life- 
 time ; but as circumstances appeared from his point 
 of view, the time had not come for abdication in any 
 particular, and he believed the best he could do was 
 to gradually prepare the way for self-government. 
 
 That the condition was anomalous is apparent. 
 Generally speaking, no one man should have such 
 authority, and Mr. Wesley foresaw that after him no 
 man among the Methodists would be permitted to ex- 
 ercise such power of government. However, a strong 
 argument can be drawn from the circumstances at- 
 tending the birth of Methodism to maintain Mr. Wes- 
 ley's claim for supreme control; but since his death 
 there is no argument or circumstance which would give 
 a shadow of support to the idea that in Methodism 
 such supreme power should vest in any one man. 
 
 The people and preachers came to Mr. Wesley 
 voluntarily, and placed themselves under his ruler- 
 ship. They freely accepted his direction, and were 
 under no compulsion to remain in association with 
 him. They could stay or go according to their own 
 sweet will, and it is remarkable how few were dis- 
 satisfied with his administration. 
 
WESLEY'S CONFERENCES. 17 
 
 Some may say that it was a despotic government; 
 but if so, it was one the people and the preachers in- 
 vited and to which they freely submitted, believing 
 that, under the circumstances, 'from it they would re- 
 ceive the greatest benefit. 
 
 No doubt Mr. Wesley might have been called a 
 despot, in the sense that a despot is " one who governs 
 according to his own will, under a recognized right or 
 custom, but uncontrolled by constitutional restrictions 
 or the wishes of his subjects ;" * but in the sense of 
 absolute power, the government of the universe by 
 the Supreme Ruler is a despotism which is just and 
 good. If Mr. Wesley was an absolute ruler, he did 
 not use his power for his own aggrandizement, but 
 for the good of his voluntary subjects. He was not 
 a despot in exercising an unjust and oppressive 
 government, but was a cultured Christian, and his 
 rule was kind, intelligent, self-sacrificing, and Christly. 
 He did Dot govern by force, but only directed those 
 who freely came to him and recognized him as a provi- 
 dential leader, who, by force of circumstances, had a 
 right to rule. He was not responsible to the Confer- 
 ence, and was not controlled by any ecclesiastical 
 organization, but he ever realized his responsibility to 
 Almighty God and the needs of humanity. 
 
 Rather let us call it personal government in which 
 he planned, toiled, and denied himself, while others 
 reaped and enjoyed the benefits. It was a personal 
 government, justified by the circumstances of its ori- 
 gin, by its Christly spirit, by its great wisdom, and 
 
 1 Century Dictionary. 
 
18 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 by the strength of Wesley's personal devotion to the 
 interests of the governed; and was justified in its con- 
 tinuance as long as there was the willing acquiescence 
 of the preachers and people. 
 
 It was a sort of paternal government, but one 
 that was directed by the highest intelligence and 
 conscientiousness; and, to say the least, that has 
 some advantages over a mere mobocracy, where igno- 
 rance, prejudice, passion, and selfishness dominate. 
 And it must be admitted that probably Methodism 
 has never been more successfully and satisfactorily 
 governed than by Wesley ; not only because of the 
 circumstances, but also because his control meant 
 wisdom, sympathy, self-denial, and righteousness of 
 an unusual type. Nevertheless the historic fact re- 
 mains that Wesley's Conferences had no law-making 
 function. The members of the Conference conferred, 
 but the Conference did not decide. 
 
 The Rev. John Wesley was the government. 
 
 He made the laws; he made the appointments of 
 the preachers; he decided who should be admitted 
 into the societies and who should be excluded from 
 the societies under his care; he said who should and 
 who should not be received into the Methodist min- 
 istry; and the chapel property was so deeded that 
 the trustees were compelled to admit him to the 
 pulpit, and also to admit such preachers as he 
 might appoint. In brief, Mr. Wesley embodied 
 in himself supreme legislative, executive, and ju- 
 dicial functions. It was the era of personal gov- 
 ernment, and no matter what possible criticisms 
 
WESLEY'S CONFERENCES. 19 
 
 may be suggested, it must be confessed that it was 
 a righteous and marvelously successful government. 
 
 Nevertheless, no matter what may be said in jus- 
 tification of such centralized forms under such condi- 
 tions, it must be admitted that under ordinary circum- 
 stances such concentrated authority gives a most 
 dangerous form of government. 
 
 It is true that the best government is relative, 
 and depends upon the character of the governed ; 
 but, whatever may be said as to formative periods, 
 we can not doubt that where the governed have gen- 
 eral intelligence and strong conscientiousness, the 
 safest course is in the diffusion of power. 
 
 Wesley's government may be defended on the 
 ground of peculiar conditions and successful results; 
 but, with different conditions, a repetition of such con- 
 trol would be universally deprecated, and should not 
 be tolerated. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 WESLEY'S EARLY PLANS FOR PERPETUATING BRIT. 
 
 ISH METHODISM AND ENDOWING THE 
 
 CONFERENCE WITH POWER. 
 
 THE Rev. John Wesley did not at first realize the 
 vastness of the work in which he had engaged > 
 but when its real proportions began to be appreciated, 
 he had no thought of ever permitting it to disappear, 
 either during his life, or, if he could prevent it, after 
 his death. 
 
 Moving forward at first without any particular 
 plan, he followed what he believed were the indica- 
 tions, of Providence, and so gradually found himself 
 doing things which he believed were providentially 
 right, but which would have shocked his early High- 
 Churchism. 
 
 The result was that in the course of years there 
 grew around him a great religious organization, which, 
 years before his death, had spread throughout Great 
 Britain and Ireland and beyond the seas. His so- 
 cieties and chapels dotted the kingdom, and his de- 
 voted preachers served wherever he sent them. 
 
 At no time had the Church of England any con- 
 trol over the Methodist societies, the Methodist 
 chapels and schools, or the Methodist Conference. 
 The Established Church had not, through convoca- 
 tion, bishop or archbishop, or in any other way, 
 
 20 
 
WESLEY'S EARLY PLANS. 21 
 
 exercised control over the Methodist movement. It 
 never had belonged to the Establishment, though a 
 number of its ministers had been regularly ordained 
 clergymen of the State Church. Many of the mem- 
 bers of the societies were connected with the parish 
 Church, but other individuals in the societies never 
 had any relation with the Church of England. 
 
 As an organization, Wesleyan Methodism never 
 was connected with or under the control of the State 
 Church. As it always had been distinct, it could not 
 be severed from it. What it required was not sepa- 
 ration, but a provision for its legal perpetuation. 
 
 There are many kinds of evidence to prove that 
 Mr. Wesley never designed that it should be absorbed, 
 or that it should be permitted to evaporate. As long 
 as he lived and preserved his mental vigor, he could 
 hold both preachers and people together; but he saw 
 that serious difficulties might arise when death re- 
 moved him from their midst. 
 
 The matter appeared to cost him much anxiety. 
 The rules for the societies had become well understood, 
 and the general economy of Methodism was well 
 settled. In the Conferences Mr. Wesley had given 
 the preachers a training which would be helpful 
 when the time for self-government arrived, and yet 
 there were many contingencies for which provision 
 should be made. 
 
 In anticipation of possible difficulties, Mr. Wesley, 
 on Friday, August 4, 1769, read to the Conference, then 
 in session at Leeds, the following mode of procedure 
 in case of his death, so that when he had ceased to 
 
22 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 be the bond of union, organic Methodism would still 
 be perpetuated: 
 
 "My DEAR BRETHREN, It has long been my desire that 
 all those ministers of our Church who believe and preach sal- 
 vation by faith, might cordially agree between themselves, and 
 not hinder, but help one another. After occasionally pressing 
 this in private conversation wherever I had opportunity, I 
 wrote down my thoughts upon the head, and sent them to each 
 in a letter. Out of fifty or sixty to whom I wrote, only three 
 vouchsafed me an answer. So I gave this up. I can do no 
 more. They are a rope of sand, and such they will continue. 
 But it is otherwise with the traveling preachers in our Con- 
 nection. You are at present one body; you act in concert 
 with each other, and by united counsels. And now is the 
 time to consider what can be done in order to continue this 
 union. Indeed, as long as I live there will be no great diffi- 
 culty. I am, under God, a center of union to all our traveling 
 as well as local preachers. 
 
 "They all know me and my communication ; they all love 
 me for my work's sake ; and, therefore, were it only out of re- 
 gard to me, they will continue connected with each other. 
 But by what means may this connection be preserved when 
 God removes me from you? 
 
 "I take it for granted it can not be preserved by any 
 means between those who have not a single eye. Those who 
 aim at anything but the glory of God and the salvation of 
 men who desire or seek any earthly thing, whether honor, 
 profit, or ease wjll not, can not continue in the Connection ; 
 it will not answer their design. Some of them, perhaps a 
 fourth of the whole number, will procure preferment in the 
 Church. Others will turn Independents, and get spparate con- 
 gregations. Lay your accounts with this, and be not sur- 
 prised if some you do not suspect be of this number. But 
 what method can be taken "to preserve a firm union between 
 those who choose to remain together? 
 
 "Perhaps you might take some such steps as these : 
 
 "On notice of my death, let all the preachers in England 
 and Ireland repair to London within six weeks. 
 
 "Let them seek God by solemn fasting and prayer. 
 
WKSI^Y'S EARLY PLANS. 23 
 
 " Let them draw up articles of agreement, to be signed by 
 those who choose to act in concert. 
 
 " Let those be dismissed who do not choose it, in the most 
 friendly manner possible. 
 
 "Let them choose, by votes, a committee of three, five, of 
 seven, each of whom is to be moderator in his turn. 
 
 " Let the committee do what I do now, propose preachers 
 to be tried, admitted, or excluded, fix the place of each preacher 
 for the ensuing year an 1 the time of the next Conferen ;e. 
 
 "Can anything be done now in order to lay a foundation 
 for this future union ? Would it not be well for any that are 
 willing to sign some articles of agreement before God calls me 
 hence ? 
 
 " Suppose something like these : 
 
 "We, whose names are underwritten, being thoroughly 
 convinced of the necessity of a close union between those 
 whom God is pleased to use as instruments in this glorious 
 work, in order to preserve this union between ourselves, are 
 resolved, God being our helper, 
 
 "1. To devote ourselves entirely to God, denying ourselves, 
 taking up our cross daily, steadily aiming at one thing, to save 
 our own sou's and them that hear us. 
 
 "2. To preach the Old Methodist Doctrines, and no other, 
 contained in the Minutes of the Conferences. 
 
 "3. To observe and enforce the whole Methodist Dis. 
 cipline, laid down in the said Minutes." l 
 
 One result of this proposition was that " the 
 preachers then desired Mr. Wesley to extract the most 
 material part of the Minutes, and send a copy to 
 each assistant, which he might communicate to all his 
 preachers in his circuit, to be seriously considered. " 2 
 
 In his " Short History of the People Called Meth- 
 
 1 Minutes, 1769, Vol. I, pp. 87-89; Peirce's Wesleyan Polity, 3d Ed., 
 pp. 13-15. 
 
 2 Minutes, 1769, Vol. I, pp. 87-89 ; Peirce's Wesleyan Polity, pp. 13-15 ; 
 John Whitehead, M. D., Life of Wesley, Vol. II, pp. 305-307, Dubliu, 
 1806. 
 
24 GOVERNING CONFERENCE: IN METHODISM. 
 
 odists," Wesley, referring to the first Conference held 
 in 1744, says: " The result of our consultations we set 
 down to be the rules of our future practice/ 7 and thus 
 began a broad disciplinary system. In 1753, Wesley 
 made his first collation from the Minutes of the several 
 Conferences, and issued the first edition of the Large 
 Minutes. In 1763 he issued a second edition. 1 
 
 At the present date, 1769, sixteen Conferences had 
 been held, and new rules, or new applications of old 
 rules, had been accumulating since 1763, but were 
 scattered through the several Annual Minutes. It 
 was, therefore, a wise request that a digest of the 
 Minutes should be made as a part of the plan for per- 
 petuating Wesleyan Methodism after the decease of 
 Mr. Wesley. 
 
 This request Mr. Wesley complied with the next 
 year, when he issued an octavo pamphlet of sixty 
 pages, entitled " Minutes of Several Conversations 
 between the Rev. Messrs. John and Charles Wesley 
 and Others." This publication, which has been called 
 " The Large Minutes of Conference," 2 was a new 
 and enlarged edition of the Minutes published in 
 1763, embracing Minutes of all the Conferences held 
 from that period to the year 1770. 3 
 
 Thus was put in shape that which would be the 
 formulated Discipline of Methodism, and the author- 
 ity to which appeal could be made should Mr. Wes- 
 ley pass away. 
 
 1 L. Tyerman, Life of John Wesley, Vol. II, p. 474. 
 
 2 Whitehead's Wesley, Vol. II, p. 308. 
 
 L. Tyerman, Life of John Wesley, Vol. Ill, p. 80. 
 
WESLEY'S EARLY PLANS. 25 
 
 The second result was the acceptance of the main 
 proposition, and the signing the instrument pledging 
 the preachers "to observe and enforce the whole 
 Methodist Discipline, laid down in the said Min- 
 utes/' etc. 
 
 Here, then, was a plan not only for the perpetuity 
 of Methodist doctrine and Methodist discipline in 
 general, but also for the perpetuity of the Conference, 
 and its endowment with power to govern after his 
 decease; and specifying that the Conference should 
 "choose by votes" a committee, each member of 
 which should be moderator in turn, and that the 
 whole committee should have the power which had 
 been concentrated in John Wesley. Perhaps from 
 this suggestion of a committee grew the idea of a 
 Stationing Committee, adopted in England after Wes- 
 ley's death. 
 
 Dr. Whitehead states that " These articles were then 
 signed by many of the preachers. But some years 
 afterward others had influence enough, however, to 
 prevail upon Mr. Wesley to relinquish the present 
 plan, and leave the mode of union among the preach- 
 ers, after his death, to their own deliberations." l 
 
 We are not quite sure as to the precise reference 
 of Dr. Whitehead's remark. It might be supposed 
 to have some relation to the matter which will be 
 treated in the next chapter; but if so, the observation 
 is not pertinent, for it meditated a distinct plan for a 
 different object and a more mature arrangement in- 
 volving the same purpose. We might imagine that 
 
 Wliitehead, Life of Wesley, Vol. II, p. 307. 
 
26 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 perhaps it had some application to Wesley's desire 
 that the Rev. John Fletcher, vicar of Madeley, 
 should be his active assistant during his old age, and 
 his probable successor in tbe Methodist leadership 
 after his decease; but the points do not fit. 
 
 It is proper, however, that a word should be said 
 in regard to the later project. The Rev. Jean Guil- 
 laume de la Flechiere or, as he was generally called 
 in England, his adopted country, John William 
 Fletcher was born in Switzerland, September 12, 
 1729, so that he was about twenty -five years younger 
 than Mr. Wesley. He belonged to a distinguished 
 family, and was highly educated. His parents in- 
 tended him for the pulpit ; but his preference was for 
 a soldier's life, and at twenty he entered the service 
 of Portugal as captain. At last he found his way to 
 England, and, about 1755, joined the Methodists. On 
 the 6th of March, 1757, when in his twenty-eighth 
 year, he was ordained deacon in the English Church, 
 at the Chapel Royal, St. James's, and the following 
 Sunday, March 13th, he was ordained priest, at 
 Whitehall, London, by the Bishop of Bangor. 
 
 Fletcher's devotion to Mr. Wesley was very great, 
 and as soon as he was ordained priest he hastened to 
 the West Street Chapel, to assist Wesley in adminis- 
 tering the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. 1 
 
 In his Journal, under date of Sunday, March 13, 
 1757, Mr. Wesley has this entry: "Finding myself 
 weak at Snowfields, I prayed (if he saw good) that 
 
 iL. Tyerman, Life of John Wesley, Vol. II, p. 263; see Wesley's 
 Sermon on the Death of Mr. Fletcher, Ser. LVIII, Amer. Ed. 
 
WESLEY'S EARLY PLANS. 27 
 
 God would send me help at the chapel, and I had it. 
 A clergyman, whom I never saw before, came and of- 
 fered me his assistance ; and as soon as I had done 
 preaching, Mr. Fletcher came, who had just then been 
 ordained priest, and hastened to the chapel on pur- 
 pose to assist, as he supposed me to be alone." The 
 following Sunday, March 20th, he adds this note : 
 " Mr. Fletcher helped me again. How wonderful 
 are the ways of God! When my bodily strength 
 failed, and none in England were able and willing to 
 assist me, he sent me help from the mountains of 
 Switzerland, and a helpmeet for me in every respect. 
 Where could I have found such another?" 1 
 
 This is the man who, when offered the living of 
 Dunham, in Cheshire, which was worth about 400 
 a year, thanked his patron, and replied: "Alas! sir, 
 Dunham will not suit me ; there is too much money 
 and too little labor;" and then accepted Madeley, 
 where the living was not worth half as much, and where 
 the work was harder and among a people generally 
 notorious for their ignorance and impiety. 2 
 
 He was a most devoted pastor, an eloquent 
 preacher, and a great polemical writer. Fletcher was 
 indeed the great Methodist controversialist, and 
 though he was saintly in the gentleness of his life, 
 he struck vigorous blows in defense of Methodist 
 Arminianism. 3 He was Wesley's champion, an at- 
 tendant at his Conferences, and, notwithstanding the 
 
 i Wesley's Works, Amer. Ed., Vol. Ill, Journal, p. 623. 
 2 Rev. Robert Cox, A. M., Life of Rev. John William Fletcher, 1st 
 Amer. Ed., pp. 33-35. 
 
 s See his Checks to Autinomianism. 
 
28 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 difference in their years, one of his most reliable 
 counselors. In him sweetness and strength combined. 
 
 The Rev. John Venn, vicar of Huddersfield, ex- 
 claimed: "Fletcher was a luminary. A luminary, did 
 I say ? He was a sun. I have known all the great men 
 for these fifty years, but I have known none like him. 
 I was intimately acquainted with him, and was once 
 under the same roof with him for six weeks together, 
 during which time I never heard him say a single 
 word which was not proper to be spoken, and which 
 had not a tendency to minister grace to the hearers." 1 
 
 In 1770, Mr. Fletcher made a visit to Nyon, Swit- 
 zerland, his native place, and, by his public preaching 
 and private character, he deeply impressed those who 
 heard or came in contact with him; so much so, in- 
 deed, that a venerable clergyman earnestly urged him 
 to lengthen his stay among them. Finding that his 
 request could not be granted, he turned to Mr. 
 Fletcher's traveling companion, and, with tears in his 
 eyes, exclaimed : " O, sir, how unfortunate for this 
 country ! During my day it has produced but one 
 angel, and it is our lot to be deprived of him." 2 
 
 In his sermon on the death of Mr. Fletcher, who 
 died on Sunday evening, August 14, 1785, in the 
 fifty-sixth year of his age, Mr. Wesley remarks: 
 "I was intimately acquainted with him for above 
 thirty years. I conversed with him morning, noon, 
 and night, without the least reserve, during a journey 
 
 1 Rev. Robert Cox, Life of Fletcher, 1st Amer. Ed., p. 174. 
 
 2 Kev.. Robert Cox, A. M., Life of Rev. John William Fletcher, 1st 
 Amer. Ed., 1837, p. 75. 
 
WESLEY'S EARLY PLANS. 29 
 
 of many hundred miles, and in all that time I never 
 heard him speak one improper word nor saw him do 
 an improper action. To conclude: Many exemplary 
 men have I known, holy in heart and life, within 
 fourscore years, but one equal to him have I not 
 known one so inwardly and outwardly devoted to 
 God. So unblamable a character in every respect I 
 have not found either in Europe or America, nor do 
 I expect to find another such on this side of eternity." 1 
 
 Surely no one will wonder if Mr. Wesley for a 
 time entertained the thought of making this marvel- 
 ous man his general assistant, and of presenting him 
 as the proper person to succeed him. 
 
 Possibly, Mr. Wesley had doubts as to whether 
 the Conference, when left to itself after his death, would 
 agree and hold together after it had for so long a 
 time learned to depend upon the leadership of one 
 man. The thought may have occurred to him that, 
 even with the Conference free to govern itself, it 
 would need a specially able chief. However it may 
 have been, to his mind Fletcher was the best fitted, 
 and, being twenty-five years his junior, would in all 
 probability outlive him. 
 
 In January, 1773, John Wesley spent some time 
 at Shoreham, doubtless for the purpose of consulting 
 the venerable Vicar of Shoreham, the Reverend Vin- 
 cent Perronet, who was born of Swiss-French parent- 
 age about the year 1700, and therefore was two or 
 three years older than Mr. Wesley. Both of his 
 sons Charles and Edward Perronet became inti- 
 
 1 Wesley's Sermons, Araer. Ed., Vol. I, p. 533. 
 
30 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 mately acquainted with the Wesleys at Oxford, and 
 were Methodist preachers for years. John, Wesley 
 found in the vicar a true friend, a warm admirer, and 
 a most confidential counselor. So intimate were their 
 relations that Charles Wesley called him the " Arch- 
 bishop of Methodism." 
 
 The records are silent as to what was said at that 
 visit; but from Shoreham, John Wesley thus wrote to 
 his beloved Fletcher: 
 
 " DEAR SIR, What an amazing work has God wrought in 
 these kingdoms in less than forty years! And it not only 
 continues, but increases throughout England, Scotland, and 
 Ireland ; nay, it has lately spread into New York, Pennsyl- 
 vania, Virginia, Maryland, and Carolina. But the wise men 
 of the world say : ' When Mr. Wesley drops, then all this is at 
 an end.' And so it surely will, unless, before God calls him 
 hence, one is found to stand in his place. For 
 
 'OvK ayadov TroTwuoipavirj 1 elf Koipavog lorw. 1 
 
 I see more and more, unless there be one Trpoecrug* the work 
 Can never be carried on. The body of the preachers are not 
 united, nor will any part of them submit to the rest ; so that 
 there must be one to preside over all, or the work will indeed 
 come to an end. 
 
 "But who is sufficient for these things? Qualified to pre- 
 side both over the preachers and people? He must be a man 
 of faith and love, and one that has a single eye to the advance- 
 ment of the kingdom of God. He must have a clear under- 
 standing ; a knowledge of men and things, particularly of the 
 Methodist doctrine and discipline; a ready utterance; dili- 
 gence and activity ; with a tolerable share of health. There 
 must be added to these, favor With the people with the Meth- 
 odists in general. For unless God turn their eyes and hearts 
 toward him, he will be quite incapable of the work. He must 
 likewise have some degree of learning; because there are many 
 
 The rule of the many is not good ; let there be one ruler. 
 Set at the head as leader; one who presides over the rest. 
 
WESLEY'S EARLY PLANS. 31 
 
 adversaries, learned as well as unlearned, whose mouths must 
 be stopped. But this can not be done, unless he be able to 
 meet them on their own ground. 
 
 "But has God provided one so qualified? Who is he? 
 Thou art the man ! God has given you a measure of loving 
 faith, and a single eye to his glory. He has given you some 
 knowledge of men and things, particularly of the whole plan 
 of Methodism. You are blessed with some health, activity, 
 and diligence, together with a degree of learning. And to all 
 these he has lately added, by a way none could have foreseen, 
 favor both with the preachers and the whole people. Come out, 
 in the name of God ! Come to the help of the Lord against 
 the mighty ! Come, while I am alive and capable of labor 
 44 ' Dura superest Laches! quod torqueat, et pedibus me 
 Porto meis, nullo dextram subeunte bacillo.' 1 
 
 "Come, while I am able, God assisting, to build you up 
 in the faith, to ripen your gifts, and to introduce you to the 
 people. Nil tanti* What possible employment can you have 
 which is of so great importance? 
 
 "But you will naturally say: 'I am not equal to the task; 
 I have neither grace nor gifts for such an employment.' You 
 say true ; it is certain you have not and who has ? But do you 
 not know Him who is able to give them? Perhaps not at 
 once ; but rather day by day, as each is, so shall your strength 
 be. 'But this implies/ you may say, 'a thousand crosses, 
 such as I feel I am not able to bear.' 
 
 " You are not able to bear them now, and they are not 
 now come. Whenever they do come, will He not send them 
 in due number, weight, and measure ? And will they not all 
 be for your profit, that you may be a partaker of His 
 holiness ? 
 
 "Without conferring, therefore, with flesh and blood, 
 come and strengthen the hands, comfort the heart, and share 
 the labors of your affectionate friend and brother, 
 
 "JOHN WESLEY."* 
 
 1 While Lacliesis has some thread of life to spin, and I walk on my 
 own feet without the help of a staff. (Juvenal, Sat. iii ) 
 
 2 Nothing is of so much concern. 
 
 Whitehead's Life of Wesley, Dublin, 1806, Vol. II, pp. 342-344 ; Wes- 
 ley's Works, Am. Ed., Vol. VI, pp. 687, 688. 
 
32 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 The letter evidently grew out of Wesley's anxiety 
 for the perpetuity of Methodism. Seeing the rapid 
 growth of the societies, " he became, therefore/ 7 says 
 Dr. Whitehead, the author of the " Life of Wesley," 
 "every day more solicitous to provide for their unity 
 and permanency after his decease, wishing to pre- 
 serve at the same time the original doctrines and 
 economy of the Methodists. He knew the views 
 and opinions of the preachers better than any other 
 individual possibly could, having persons in all places 
 who constantly informed him of everything of im- 
 portance that was said or done. From the beginning 
 he had stood at the head of the Connection, and by 
 the general suffrage had acted as dictator in matters 
 relating to the government of the societies. He had 
 often found that all his authority was barely suffi- 
 cient to preserve peace and unanimity, and seemed to 
 conclude that if his authority were to cease, or not to 
 be transferred to another at his death, the preachers 
 and people would fall into confusion." 1 
 
 Dr. Whitehead, commenting on Wesley's letter to 
 Fletcher, says : 
 
 " This warm and sincere invitation to a situation not only 
 respected, but even reverenced, by so large a body of people, 
 must have been highly pleasing to Mr. Fletcher, especially aa 
 it came from a person he most sincerely loved, whose supe- 
 rior abilities, learning, and labors he admired, and to whose 
 success in the ministry he wished to give every assistance in 
 his power. But he well knew the occasional embarrassments 
 Mr. Wesley met with in the government of some preachers, 
 
 i John Whitehead, M. D., Life of Wesley, Dublin, 180G, Vol. II, pp. 
 341,342. 
 
WESLEY'S EARLY PLANS. 33 
 
 though he alone, under the providence of God, had given ex- 
 istence to their present character, influence, and usefulness ; 
 and that a determination prevailed among them not to be 
 under the control of any one man after the death of Mr. Wes- 
 ley. Under these circumstances, he probably saw nothing be 
 fore him but storms and tempests, especially if he should live 
 to be alone in the office. He therefore determined not to launch 
 his little bark on so tempestuous an ocean." l 
 
 This is certainly a very strange reason for Dr. 
 Whitehead to give, and the inference is not sustained 
 by the facts. Mr. Fletcher was not a timid man, but 
 a man of great courage, and if he believed a thing 
 was his duty he would have laid down his life in its 
 discharge. Further, Mr. Fletcher was such a pure 
 and transparent man that had Dr. Whitehead's reason 
 been Mr. Fletcher's motive for declining the invita- 
 tion at that time, he would certainly have revealed it 
 in his reply. But we will permit the letter to speak 
 for itself. 
 
 Before presenting the letter, however, we should 
 quote some observations made by the Rev. Henry 
 Moore, one of the trustees of Mr. Wesley's manu- 
 scripts. Referring to the remarks of Dr. Whitehead 
 he says: " He wrote on a subject with which he was 
 wholly unacquainted. The charity of his surmisings 
 is, however, very manifest. He did not know that 
 Mr. Fletcher had ever answered Mr. Wesley's letter ; 
 but I am happy in being able to lay his answer be- 
 fore the reader, who will see in it the very different 
 spirit of that man of God. His faith, indeed, respect- 
 ing the continuance of the whole body of the preachers 
 
 i J. Whitehead, Life of Wesley, Dublin, 1806, Vol. II, p. 311. 
 
34 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 in their first calling seems to have been shaken, as Mr. 
 Wesley's also was; but there is no such feeling ex- 
 pressed as that which festered in the mind of Dr. 
 Whitehead. His attachment to that work, which he 
 fully believed to be of God, is also strikingly evi- 
 dent. He certainly could not be easily persuaded to 
 take the station which Mr. Wesley wished him to take, 
 as his well-known humility used to give the preachers 
 trouble by his constantly preferring them before him- 
 self. But he certainly would have taken a most decided 
 part in the work if his total loss of health, which 
 obliged him to leave his parish and to retire to Switz- 
 erland, had not prevented it. Upon his return, with 
 his strength renewed in some degree, he married, and 
 thus became settled in his parish, evidencing to the 
 last his ardent love to the work of God, and to those 
 who were employed in it. At the last Conference 
 which he attended, in the year 1784 (the year before 
 his death), he entreated Mr. Wesley to put Madeley 
 into the Minutes as a Methodist circuit, and that he 
 might be put down as a supernumerary there; thus 
 wishing to be still more united to those whom he so 
 much loved." 1 
 
 The reply of Mr. Fletcher does not contain a sin- 
 gle sentiment to sustain Dr. Whitehead's inference. 
 While he does not accept the appointment, he does not 
 peremptorily and permanently refuse. He wants " a 
 fuller persuasion that the time has come," and pro- 
 poses to pray for light, and intimates that, when the 
 
 1 Rev. Henry Moore, only surviving trustee of Mr. Wesley's MSS., 
 Life of Rev. John Wesley, A. M., Amer. Ed., 1825, Vol. II, p. 217. 
 
WESLKY'S EARLY PLANS. 35 
 
 time of need comes at Wesley's death, i'f he is still 
 living, he " will not be backward to throw in his 
 mite." 
 
 His letter will more fully represent his case. It is 
 as follows: 
 
 "MADELEY, 6th February, 1773. 
 
 . "REVEREND AND DEAR SIR, I hope the Lord, who has so 
 wonderfully stood by you hitherto, will preserve you to see 
 many of your sheep, and me among the rest, enter into rest. 
 Should Providence call you first, I shall do my best, by the 
 Lord's assistance, to help your brother to gather the wreck and 
 keep together those who are not absolutely bent upon throw- 
 ing away the Methodist doctrine or discipline, as soon as he 
 that now letteth shall be removed out of their way. Every 
 little help will then be necessary, and I hope I shall not be 
 backward to throw in my mite. 
 
 " In the meantime, you stand sometimes in need of an as- 
 sistant to serve tables and occasionally to fill up a gap. Provi- 
 dence visibly appointed me to that office many years ago ; and 
 though it no less evidently called me here, yet I have not 
 been without doubt, especially for some years past, whether it 
 would not be expedient that I should resume my place as your 
 deacon ; not with any view of presiding over the Methodists 
 after you (God knows!), but to save you a little in your old 
 age> and be in the way of receiving, and perhaps of doing, 
 more good. I have sometimes considered how shameful it was 
 that no clergyman should join you to keep in the Church the 
 work which the Lord had enabled you to carry on therein ; 
 and, as the little estate I have in my native country is suffi- 
 cient for my maintenance, I have thought I would one day or 
 other offer you and the Methodists my free services. 
 
 " While my love of retirement, and my dread of appearing 
 upon a higher stage than that I stand upon here, made me 
 linger, I waa providentially called to do something in Lady 
 Huntingdon's plan ; but being shut out there, it appears to 
 me I am again called to my first work. 
 
 " Nevertheless, I would not leave this place without a, fuller 
 persuasion that the time is quite come. Not that God uses me 
 
36 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 much now among my parishioners, but because I have not 
 sufficiently cleared my conscience from the blood of all men, 
 especially with regard to ferreting out the poor, and expostu- 
 lating with the rich, who make it their business to fly from 
 me. In the meantime, it shall be my einp'oyment to beg 
 the Lord to give me light, to guide me by his counsel, and 
 make me willing to go anywhere or nowhere, to be anything 
 or nothing. 
 
 <4 I have laid my pen aside for some time; nevertheless 
 resumed it last week, at your brother's request to go on with 
 my treatise on Christian Perfection. I have made some al- 
 teration in the sheets you have seen, and hope to have a few 
 more ready for your correction against the time you come 
 this way. 
 
 " How deep is the subject ! What need have I of ' the 
 Spirit to search the deep things of God !' Help me by your 
 prayers, till you can help me by w r ord of mouth. 
 
 "Reverend and dear sir, your willing though unprofi- 
 table servant in the gospel, J. FLETCHER." l 
 
 This letter was not a positive refusal. While he 
 was not convinced that it was his duty at the present 
 time, he nevertheless took the matter under advise- 
 ment, with the assurance that when the emergency 
 was reached he would endeavor to do his part. 
 
 Mr. Moore, in his " Life of Wesley/' asserts that 
 the idea of having Mr. Fletcher at the head of Meth- 
 odism when Mr. Wesley passed away did not origi- 
 nate in Mr. Wesley's thought, but with the preachers. 
 He says: "The wish to have Mr. Fletcher at their 
 head, in case of Mr. Wesley's removal, originated 
 with themselves. They pressed Mr. Wesley to 
 apply to him, and on his reporting Mr. Fletcher's an- 
 swer, they were so encouraged that they requested 
 
 iRev. Henry Moore, Life of John Wesley, Amer. Ed. 1825, Vol. II, 
 pp. 217, 218. 
 
WESLEY'S EARLY PLANS. 37 
 
 that the application should be renewed. Mr. Wes- 
 ley replied in his usual short way: 'He will not 
 come out unless the Lord should baptize him for it.'" 1 
 
 It is plain that the preachers did not interpret the 
 reply as a peremptory negative, but it is equally 
 plain that Mr. Wesley did not propose to press Mr. 
 Fletcher faster than his own prayerful judgment 
 would lead. 
 
 Mr. Fletcher was not only a favorite with Mr. 
 Wesley, but also with Wesley's preachers. Mr. 
 Fletcher's connection with Lady Huntingdon's Tre- 
 vecca College led him, at an early moment, to come 
 to the defense of Mr. Wesley when the Conference 
 Minutes of 1770 were objected to by Lady Hunting- 
 don and some of her Calvinistic friends. The Min- 
 utes proclaimed Wesleyan Arminianism, and Fletcher 
 wrote his "Vindication of the Rev. Mr. Wesley's 
 Last Minutes." In this pamphlet of ninety-eight 
 pages, which was published in 1771, the author fur- 
 nishes a fearful description of the Antinomianism so 
 prevalent at that time. 2 
 
 Then his celebrated " Checks to Antinomianism " 
 followed in rapid succession, so that, by the end of 
 1772, Fletcher was hailed, wherever the controversy 
 was familiar, as the champion of Wesleyan Arminian- 
 ism as against Calvinism. Wesley, too busy at his 
 time of life to take the leisure for such writing, com- 
 mitted the burden to the younger man, and the Meth- 
 
 iRev, Henry Moore, Life of John Wesley, Amer. Ed., 1825, Vol. II, 
 p. 219. 
 
 aL. Tyerman, Life of Wesley, Vol. Ill, pp. 100-102. 
 
38 GOVERNING CONFERENCE: IN METHODISM. 
 
 odists generally looked to him as their defender. His 
 polemical ability, as well as his sanctity, caused the 
 preachers to look toward Fletcher as Wesley's suc- 
 cessor, and hence Wesley's invitation. 
 
 It appears that, even after the reception of Flet- 
 cher's letter, Wesley, in the early part of July of the 
 same year, had an interview with Fletcher at Made- 
 ley, where the invitation appears to have been re- 
 newed, but with a result no more favorable. On re- 
 turning to London, Mr. Wesley sent Fletcher the 
 following letter: 
 
 " LEWISHAM, July 21, 1773. 
 
 " DEAR SIR, It was a great satisfaction to me that I had 
 the opportunity, which I so long desired, of spending a little 
 time with you ; and I really think it would answer many gra- 
 cious designs of Providence were we to spend a little more 
 time together. It might be of great advantage, both to our- 
 selves and the people, who may otherwise soon be as sheep 
 without a shepherd. You say, indeed, whenever it pleases 
 God to call me away, you will do all you can to help them. 
 But will it not then be too late ? You may then expect griev- 
 ous wolves to break in on every side, and many to arise from 
 among themselves speaking perverse things. Both the one 
 and the other stand in awe of me, and do not care to encounter 
 me ; so that I am able, whether they will or no, to deliver the 
 flock into your hands. But no one else is; and it seems that 
 it is the very time when it may be done with the least diffi- 
 culty. Just now the minds of the people in general are, on 
 account of the 'Checks,' greatly prejudiced in your favor. 
 Should we not discern the providential time? Should we stay 
 till the impression is worn away ? Just now we have an op-' 
 portunity of breaking the ice of making a little trial. Mr. 
 Kichardson is desirous of making an exchange with you, and 
 spending two or three weeks at Madeley. This might be done 
 either now or in October, when I hope to return from Bristol ; 
 and until something of this kind is done you will not have 
 
WESLEY'S EARLY PLANS. 39 
 
 that cropyn [affection] for the people which alone can make 
 your labor light in spending and being spent for them. Me- 
 thinks 'tis pity we should lose any time; for what a vapor is 
 life! 
 
 " I am, dear sir, your affectionate friend and brother, 
 
 "JOHN WESLEY." 1 
 
 How tenderly he tries to induce him to break the 
 ice and make a little trial! What a good opportunity 
 to make a little tour when another clergyman is will- 
 ing to take his place for two or three weeks ! What 
 a providential period, when the people are so favor- 
 ably impressed by his polemical productions! So he 
 gently suggests, but in vain. The good man does not 
 feel providentially called at that time. 
 
 About two weeks later, on the 3d of August, the 
 Conference of 1773 commenced. Wesley had failed 
 to secure the assent of Fletcher to his proposition, 
 yet he was evidently impressed with the importance 
 of doing something to insure the perpetuity of Meth- 
 odism ; so we find Wesley again bringing forward the 
 plan first presented in the Conference of 1769, " in 
 order to lay a foundation for this future union." The 
 agreement was as follows : 
 
 *'We, whose names are underwritten, being thoroughly 
 convinced of the necessity of a close union between those 
 whom God is pleased to use as instruments in this glorious 
 work, in order to preserve this union between ourselves, are 
 resolved, God being our helper, 
 
 "I. To devote ourselves entirely to God denying our- 
 selves, taking up our cross daily, steadily aiming at one thing, 
 to save our own souls and them that hear us. 
 
 " II. To preach the old Methodist doctrines, and no other, 
 contained in the Minutes of the Conferences. 
 
 i L. Tyerman, Life of John Wesley, Vol. Ill, p. 150. 
 
40 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 " III. To observe and enforce the whole Methodist Dis- 
 cipline, laid down in the said Minutes." 
 
 This conferential compact had been signed at the 
 Conference of 1769, and now it is once more signed 
 by the forty-seven preachers who were present at the 
 Conference of 1773. 1 
 
 Whether Wesley renewed this agreement because 
 he had failed to obtain the consent of Fletcher maybe 
 an open question in the minds of some; but he pre- 
 sented it in 1769, before Fletcher was thought of either 
 by himself or his preachers for the position of president 
 and successor, and it is our opinion that, even if 
 Fletcher had consented, the plan would have been 
 presented for the purpose of binding the preachers 
 together. The same proposition was presented and 
 signed in the Conferences of 1774 and 1775. This 
 seems to indicate a deliberate and continued purpose 
 on the part of Mr. Wesley. Referring to the out- 
 lines of a plan for the future union of the preachers, 
 presented in 1769, Peirce, in his work on the Wesleyan 
 Polity, says: "Having left these propositions with 
 the preachers, that they might consider them ma- 
 turely, he brought them forward at the Conferences 
 of 1773, 1774, and 1775, at each of which they received 
 the signatures of all the preachers present, amounting 
 in number to one hundred and one." 2 
 
 There is another allusion to Fletcher's succeeding 
 
 1 L. Tyerman.Life of John Wesley, Vol. Ill, pp. 156, 157. 
 
 2 William Peirce, Ecclesiatical Principles and Polity of Wesleyan 
 Methodists, revised by Frederick J. Jobson, D. D., London, 3d Ed., 
 p. 448. 
 
WESLEY'S EARLY FLANS. 41 
 
 Mr. Wesley, which should be recalled before we pass 
 from this subject. In the beginning of the year 
 1776, Mr. Fletcher had so far recovered from a severe 
 illness that Mr. Wesley, thinking easy journeys 
 would benefit him, sent him an invitation to accom- 
 pany him in the spring on some of his official tours 
 among the societies. In his answer Mr. Fletcher 
 said: 
 
 "I received last night the favor of yours from Bristol. 
 My grand desire is to be just what the Lord will have me to 
 be. I could, if you wanted a traveling assistant, accompany 
 you, as my little strength would admit, in some of your ex- 
 cursions. But your recommending me to the societies as one 
 who might succeed you, should the Lord take you hence be- 
 fore me, is a step to which I could by no means consent. It 
 would make me take my horse and gallop away. Besides, 
 such a step would, at this juncture, I think, be peculiarly im- 
 proper. We ought to give as little hold to the evil surmising^ 
 and rash judgments of our opponents as may be. What has 1 
 made me glut our friends with my books is not any love tc{ 
 such publications, but a desire to make an end of the contro- 
 versy. It is probable that my design has miscarried, and that 
 I have disgusted rather than convinced the people." 1 
 
 No doubt Mr. Wesley gave up the idea very re- 
 luctantly, for he had a lofty opinion as to Mr. 
 Fletcher's capabilities. Of him he declared: 
 
 " I can never believe it was the will of God that such ai 
 burning and shining light should be hid under a bushel. No ; 
 instead of being confined to a country village, it ought tjo have 
 shone in every corner of our land. He was full as much 
 called to sound an alarm through all the nation as Mr. White- 
 field himself; nay, abundantly more so, seeing he was far 
 better qualified for that important work. He had a far more 
 
 Rev. Heury Moore, Life of John Wesley, Amer. Ed., 1825, Veil II, 
 p. 223. 
 
42 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 striking person, eq-ual good breeding, an equally winning ad- 
 dress, together with a richer flow of fancy, a stronger under- 
 standing, a far greater treasure of learning, both in languages, 
 philosophy, philology, and divinity ; and, above all, a more 
 deep and constant communion with the Father, and with the 
 Sou, Jesus Christ." l 
 
 Whether it was Mr. Wesley's intention to trans- 
 mit to Mr. Fletcher the precise form and quantity 
 of governmental authority which he possessed and 
 used, may be considered an open question. 
 
 If he did so intend, his purpose was defeated, 
 first, by Mr. Fletcher's declination; and secondly, by 
 Mr. Fletcher's decease ; for he died before Mr Wesley. 
 
 It may be that, though he desired Mr. Fletcher 
 to be chief, at the same time he intended that the 
 latter should act conjointly with the Conference; for 
 his proposition of 1769 suggested that the Confer- 
 ence should elect a small committee to do what he 
 had done. Under this, the Conference could have 
 elected Mr. Fletcher as one of the committee. 
 
 Mr. Wesley may have meant more ; but if he did, 
 his purpose had come to naught. Whatever may 
 have been his intentions in regard to this particular 
 matter, there is no doubt as to the plan which he had 
 matured. 
 
 By the acts of 1769, 1773, 1774, and 1775, he had 
 provided in a systematic manner, not only for the 
 perpetuity of the Methodist organization and the con- 
 tinuance of its doctrines and economy, but he had 
 further provided in particular that which was entirely 
 
 i Wesley's Works, Eng. Ed., Vol. XI, p. 288; L. Tyerman, Life of 
 John Wesley, Vol. Ill, p. 150. 
 
WESLEY'S EARLY PLANS. 43 
 
 new in Methodism ; namely, that the centralized per- 
 sonal government which, he had exerted should cease 
 to exist with his death, and that the governmental 
 power he had used should be vested in the body of 
 preachers called the Conference. 
 
 John Wesley was now in his seventy-third year, 
 and there was a possibility, or even a probability, of his 
 speedy departure; but with the preachers pledged to 
 stand together and be true to Methodist doctrine and 
 discipline, and with the governing power lodged in 
 the Conference, the members of which body had been 
 trained under Wesley, there was reason to believe 
 that under the above arrangement the work of Meth- 
 odism might be carried forward, both smoothly and 
 successfully. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 MR. WESLEY'S FINAL PLAN FOR PERPETUATING 
 AND EMPOWERING THE CONFERENCE. 
 
 A FEW years after the plan presented in 1769, 
 and renewed in later years, had been generally 
 accepted by the preachers, a grave difficulty presented 
 itself. This difficulty was of a legal character, and 
 grew* out of questions in relation to the title to the 
 chapel property. Indeed, in some form, it had ex- 
 isted from an early day. 
 
 The first Methodist preaching-house was built at 
 Bristol, in 1739, and Mr. Wesley promptly settled the 
 property on eleven feoffees. At once the Rev. George 
 Whitefield and others objected, because this form of 
 settlement gave those who held the property such 
 complete control of it that they could say who should 
 and who should not officiate on the premises, and 
 thus had power at any time to exclude Mr. Wesley 
 himself. 1 
 
 Mr. Wesley remarks: 
 
 " I had not at first the least apprehension or design of 
 being personally engaged either in the expense of this work 
 or in the direction of it, having appointed eleven feoffees, on 
 whom I supposed these burdens would fall, of course. But I 
 quickly found my mistake first, with regard to the expense ; 
 for the whole undertaking must have stood still had not I im- 
 
 i Peirce's Wesleyan Polity, 3d Ed., p. 591 ; L. Tyennan's Life of John 
 Wesley, Vol. I, p. 270. 
 44 
 
WESLEY'S FINAI, PLAN. 45 
 
 mediately taken upon myself the payment of all the work- 
 men, so that, before I knew where I was, I had contracted a 
 debt of more than a hundred and fifty pounds; and this I was 
 to discharge how I could, the subscriptions of both societies 
 not amounting to one-quarter of the sum. And as to the di- 
 rection of the work, I presently received letters from my 
 friends in London, Mr. Whitefield in particular, backed with 
 a message by one just come from thence, that neither he nor 
 they would have anything to do with the building, neither 
 contribute anything towards it, unless I would instantly dis- 
 charge all feoffees and do everything in my own name. Many 
 reasons they gave for this ; but one was enough, viz. : * That 
 such feoffees would always have it in their power to control 
 me, and if I preached not as they liked, to turn me out of the 
 room that I had built.' I accordingly yielded to their advice, 
 and, calling all the feoffees together, canceled (no man opposing) 
 the instruments made before, and took the whole management 
 into my own hands. Money, it is true, I had not, nor any 
 human prospect or probability of procuring it. But I knew 
 ' the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof,' and in his 
 name set out, nothing doubting." l 
 
 Again, Mr. Wesley says at another time : 
 
 "I built the first Methodist preaching-house, so called, at 
 Bristol, in the year 1739; and, knowing no better, I suffered 
 the deed of trust to be drawn up in the Presbyterian form. . 
 But Mr. Whitefield, hearing of it, wrote me a warm letter, 
 asking: 'Do you consider what you do? If the trustees are 
 lo name the preachers, they may exclude even you from 
 preaching in the house you have built. Pray let this deed be 
 immediately canceled.' To this the trustees readily agreed. 
 Afterward I built the preaching-houses in Kingswood and at 
 Newcastle-upon-Tyne. But none beside myself had any right 
 to appoint the preachers in them." 2 
 
 In the early part of his career, nearly all the 
 chapels were vested in Mr. Wesley himself a matter 
 involving serious responsibility while he lived, but 
 
 i Rev. Heruy Moore's Life of Wesley, Vol. I, p. 363. 
 s Wesley's Works, Ainer. Ed., Vol. VII, pp. 326, 327. 
 
46 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 apt to create grave complications at his death. To 
 this his attention was called, and he observes : " As 
 the houses at Bristol, Kingswood, and Newcastle 
 were my property, a friend reminded me that they 
 were all liable to descend to my heirs. ... I was 
 struck, and immediately procured a form to be drawn 
 up by three of the most eminent counselors in Lon- 
 don, whereby not only these houses, but all the Meth- 
 odist houses hereafter to be built, might be settled on 
 such a plan as would secure them, so far as human 
 prudence could, from the heirs of the proprietors for 
 the purpose originally intended." ] 
 
 In his Journal, May 23, 1746, he says: "I made 
 over the houses in Bristol and Kingswood, and the 
 next week that at Newcastle, to seven trustees, reserv- 
 ing only to my brother and myself the liberty of preach- 
 ing and lodging there." Again, on March 19, 1747, 
 he makes this entry : " I considered, ' What would I 
 do now, if I was sure I had but two days to live?' 
 .All outward things are settled to my wish. The 
 houses at Bristol, Kingswood, and Newcastle are safe ; 
 the deeds whereby they are conveyed to the trustees 
 took place on the 5th instant ; my will is made. What 
 have I more to do but to commend my soul to my 
 merciful and faithful Creator?" 
 
 Some years afterward, Mr. Wesley obtained and 
 published a model form of a trust deed for the settle- 
 ment of the chapels, to the effect that the trustees, 
 for the time being, should permit Mr. Wesley, and 
 such other persons as he might from time to time ap- 
 
 > Wesley's Works, Amer. Ed., Vol. VII, p. 327. 
 
WESLEY'S FINAL PLAN. 47 
 
 point, to have the free use of such premises, to preach 
 and expound God's Holy Word therein. In case of 
 his death the same right was reserved for his brother 
 Charles, if he survived ; and, providing that if both 
 the Wesleys had deceased, the same prerogatives 
 were to belong to the Rev. William Grimshaw, a 
 Cambridge graduate, who had been regularly ordained 
 in the Church of England, and in 1742 was ap- 
 pointed to the perpetual curacy of Haworth, in 
 Yorkshire, but in 1745 had entered into a close 
 union with the Methodists, and acted as Mr. Wesley's 
 assistant in what was known as the Haworth Cir- 
 cuit. 1 The trust deed also recited that, after the 
 death of John and Charles Wesley and William 
 Grimshaw, the chapels were to be held in trust for 
 the sole use of such persons as might be appointed 
 at " The Yearly Conference of the People called Meth- 
 odists ;" provided, that the said persons preached and 
 expounded God's Holy Word therein according to 
 the doctrines contained in Mr. Wesley's Notes on 
 the New Testament, and his four volumes of ser- 
 mons, and no others. 2 
 
 Having published this model deed, Mr. Wesley 
 then gave directions that " no chapels or preaching- 
 rooms should be undertaken without the consent of 
 the assistant, and in every case to be settled in the 
 manner described in the said deed." 3 
 
 Mr. Grimshaw died in 1763. 
 
 L. Tyerman, Life of John Wesley, Vol. II, pp. 478,479; Vol. III. 
 p. 417 ; Peirce's Wesleyan Polity, 3d Ed., p. 592 ; Minutes of Several Con- 
 versations, 1763, 12mo, 30 pages, pp. 25-27. 
 
 Minutes 1763, Vol. I, p. 604 ; Peirce's Wesleyan Polity, 3d Ed., p. 592. 
 
48 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 In 1765 it was reported that some of the chapels 
 had not been legally settled, and that in some places 
 trustees had died and the vacancies had not been 
 filled. 1 To remedy this, the foilo\ving order was 
 taken : " Let a person be sent through England to 
 survey the deeds and supply the trustees wanting." 2 
 ; It will be observed that all this antedates the 
 plan proposed in 1769 for perpetuating Methodist 
 doctrine, Methodist economy, Methodist discipline, 
 and the Methodist Conference; but in a large sense it 
 anticipates and involves the other, for it looks for- 
 ward to the Conference as the successor of the 
 Wesleys and Grimshaw; conveys the use of the 
 chapel property for the use of the Conference through 
 those appointed at the Conference, provided they 
 preach Wesleyan doctrines. Thus the tendency 
 through the property rights involved was to hold 
 people and preachers together, and continue the Con- 
 ference with impliedly the same rights and powers 
 in all respects as had been used by John Wesley 
 himself. 
 
 Tyerman tells us that " Mr. Pawson, in his manu- 
 script memoir of Dr. Whitehead, states that, from 
 the year 1750, all Methodist chapels were settled ac- 
 cording to the provisions of the model deed that has 
 been already mentioned ; but several of the ' wisest 
 and best preachers' were not satisfied, and from time 
 to time brought up the matter at the yearly Confer- 
 ences, .and earnestly urged Wesley to do something 
 
 iPeirce's Wesleyan Polity, 3d Ed., p. 592; and Minutes. 
 Miuutes, 1765, Vol. I, p. 50. 
 
WESLEY'S FINAL PLAN. 49 
 
 more to preserve the chapels for the purpose which the 
 original builders intended." 1 
 
 Hence, in 1767, the inquiry was made: 
 
 "Are our preaching-houses settled in our form 
 safe? Should we not have the opinion of a counsel? 7 ' 
 
 After mature deliberation, Mr. Wesley, in his char- 
 acteristic style, thus replied: 
 
 "I think not. 1. Because the form was drawn 
 up by three eminent counselors. But, 2. It is the 
 way of every counsel to blame what another counsel 
 has done; but you can not at all infer that they think 
 it wrong because they say so. 3. If they did in 
 reality think it wrong, that would not prove that it 
 was so. 4. If there was (which I do not believe) 
 some defect therein, who would go to law with the 
 body of Methodists? 5. And if they did, would 
 any court in England put them out of possession, 
 especially when the intent of the deed is plain and 
 undeniable?" 2 
 
 Tyerman observes that "such reasoning failed to 
 satisfy the preachers, especially Messrs. Hampson and 
 Oddie, both of whom, says Pawson, ' were men of 
 remarkably deep understanding and sound judg- 
 ment/" 3 And yet there is not a little good sense in 
 Wesley's logic. 
 
 Wesley, however, was influenced by the pressure 
 which had been brought to bear on him, and vari- 
 ous expedients were suggested and resorted to for 
 
 *L. Tyerman, Life of John Wesley, Vol. Ill, p. 420. 
 Minutes, 1767, Vol. I, p. 73; Peirce, Wesleyan Polity, 3d Ed., p. 593 
 L. Tyerman, Life of John Wesley, Vol. Ill, p. 420. 
 L. Tyerman, Life of John Wesley, Vol. Ill, p. 420. 
 
50 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 the purpose of making the hold upon the property 
 more secure. 1 
 
 Before this question was settled, Mr. Wesley re- 
 ceived an important addition to his corps of minis- 
 ters in the person of the Rev. Thomas Coke, LL. D., 
 a clergyman of the Church of England. Dr. Coke 
 was a gentleman of wealth, and a graduate of Oxford 
 University. At the age of twenty-one he had been 
 chosen common councilman for the borough of 
 Brecon; at the age of twenty-five he had been 
 elected chief magistrate; and on June 17, 1775, 
 when less than twenty-eight years of age, he had re- 
 ceived from Oxford University the degree of Doctor 
 of Civil Law. 
 
 This remarkable young man was only about thirty 
 when, in 1777, he associated himself with Mr. Wes- 
 ley, and from him received an appointment as a 
 Methodist minister. His name, however, for some 
 unknown reason, did not appear in the Minutes until 
 1778. 2 
 
 Wesley quickly perceived the value of this new 
 acquisition, and in 1780 appointed Dr. Coke to super- 
 intend the affairs of the London Circuit, and be- 
 stowed on him various proofs of his great confidence. 
 Among others, Wesley "determined that in Ireland 
 he should visit the societies alternately with himself, 
 thus making between them in that kingdom an annual 
 visit." 3 
 
 i Tyerman, Life of John Wesley, Vol. Ill, pp. 420, 421 ; Peirce, Wes- 
 leyan Polity, 3d Ed., p. 593; Minutes, 1768, 1775. 
 
 2 Samuel Drew, Life of Rev. Thomas Coke, LL D., Amer. Ed., p. 40. 
 'Samuel Drew, Life of Dr. Coke, Amer. Ed., p. 42. 
 
WESLEY'S FINAL PLAN. 51 
 
 Dr. Coke's education, social training, and natural 
 ability prepared him for the position of a leader. He 
 was soon recognized as a positive force in the Method- 
 ist movement. Wesley intrusted him with matters of 
 great moment; and he soon took an active interest in 
 the chapel question, which appeared to be steadily 
 gaining greater momentum. 
 
 In 1782 a local difficulty, involving the power of 
 appointing preachers to a certain chapel, culminated, 
 reopened the whole question, and tended to produce a 
 state of general disorganization. It had reference to 
 the chapel at Birstal, Yorkshire. Mr. Wesley states 
 that 
 
 "A preaching-house was built at Birstal by contributions 
 and collections. 1 And John Nelson, knowing no better, suf- 
 fered a deed to be drawn in the Presbyterian form, giving 
 twelve or thirteen persons power not only of placing but 
 even of displacing the preachers at their pleasure. Had Mr. 
 Whitefield or I known this, we should have insisted on its 
 either being canceled, like that at Bristol, or so altered as to 
 insure the application of the house to the purpose for which 
 it was built without giving so dangerous a power to any 
 trustees whatever. ... In process of time the preaching- 
 house at Birstal became abundantly too small for the congre- 
 gation. It was then proposed to build a new one. And a new 
 deed was prepared, which, like the old, gave a few persons the 
 power of placing and displacing the preachers at their pleas- 
 ure. This was brought and read to me at Daw Green. As 
 soon as ever I heard it, I vehemently objected to it, and posi- 
 tively refused to sign it. I now thought I had done with it, 
 but in the evening several persons came again, and importu- 
 nately urged me to sign it ; averring that it was the same in 
 effect with the old deed, and the old deed could not be 
 
 i It was built about 1751. (Tyerman, Vol. Ill, p. 373.) 
 
52 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 altered. Not adverting that it was altered in the new one, I at 
 length unwillingly complied. 
 
 " Bat observe : whether I did right or wrong herein, or in 
 any other instance, it does not affect the merits of the cause. 
 The dwelling upon this is mere finesse, to divert us from the 
 one question, 'Is that deed right or wrong?' These things 
 were mentioned at the ensuing Conference [1782], and it was 
 asked, 'What can be done?" 1 
 
 Peirce, in his " Polity of the Wesleyan Methodists," 
 remarks that, in the year 1782 the trustees of the 
 chapel at Birstal, in Yorkshire, manifested a want of 
 confidence in Mr. Wesley and the Conference, and 
 they desired to choose preachers in connection with 
 the body, but were not willing to submit to the ap- 
 pointment made by the Conference. In this demand 
 they were the more positive as the settlement of their 
 chapel was not in accordance with the Methodist plan. 2 
 The inquiry, therefore, was made in the Conference of 
 that year : ' What can be done in regard to the preach- 
 ing-house at Birstal?" 3 
 
 The answer given at the Conference was short 
 sharp, and decisive. The reply was : " If the trustees 
 still refuse to settle it on the Methodist plan ; if they 
 still insist that they will have the right of placing 
 and displacing the preachers at their pleasure, then, 
 First, let a plain statement of the case be drawn 
 up. Secondly, let a collection be made throughout 
 all England in order to purchase ground, and 
 
 i Wesley's Works, Amer. Ed., The Case of the Birstal House, Vol. 
 VII, p. 327. 
 
 'Myles, Chronological History of the Methodi-ts, p. 10. 
 'Peirce, Polity of Wesleyan Methodists, 3d Ed., p. 594. 
 
WESLEY'S FINAL PLAN. 53 
 
 build another preaching-house as near the present as 
 may be." 1 
 
 The original Birstal deed was quite a curiosity in 
 its way. It gave the two Wesleys in succession, and 
 then to Grirashaw, the right of occupying the pulpit ; 
 but after the decease of these three ministers the trus- 
 tees were to elect their own preachers monthly ; and 
 all such preachers, so long as they continued in this 
 office, were to preach in the chapel twice every Sun- 
 day, every Christmas-day, New Year's-day, and Good 
 Friday, and also every Thursday night, as had been 
 up to 1751, "usual and customary to be done." 2 
 
 The new deed of 1782 gave the right of appoint- 
 ment to John and Charles Wesley during their 
 life-time; but after their death the appointment of 
 preachers was to be made by the trustees and certain 
 persons who had been class-leaders for three years, and 
 the preachers so selected were to hold said premises 
 and exercise the function of a preacher only during 
 the good-will and pleasure of the major part of the 
 aforesaid trustees and class-leaders. 3 
 
 The latter deed was widely different from the for- 
 mer, and, as the vice-chancellor ruled in 1854, so far 
 as it purported to vary the trusts of the deed of 1751, 
 it was void and of no effect. 4 
 
 Wesley doubtless saw he had been worried into a 
 
 i Wesley's Works, Amer. Ed., Vol. VII, p. 327; Minutes 1782, Vol. I, 
 p. 157; Peirce, Wesleyan Polity, p. 594. 
 
 2Tyerman, Life of John Wesley, Vol. Ill, p. 373. 
 
 sTyerman, Life of John Wesley, Vol. Ill p. 374. 
 
 * Methodist Magazine, 1854, p. 184; Tyerman, Life of Wesley, Vol. 
 Ill, p. 375. 
 
54 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 mistake in signing the deed, which he did May 14, 
 1782; but, though almost seventy-nine years old, he 
 was acute enough to see that it was still necessary 
 for his brother Charles to join in the conveyance; so 
 on the 28th of May, 1782, he wrote to his brother, 
 suggesting that he write assuring the parties that he 
 would sign if the chapel were settled on the Meth- 
 odist plan, but not otherwise. Charles acted on 
 his brother's suggestion, refusing to sign the deed. 
 
 Mr. Wesley was determined to maintain discipline, 
 and on June 18, 1782, he addressed Mr. Yalton, one 
 of the Birstal preachers, the following note : 
 
 " MY DEAR BROTHER, I can not allow J S to be 
 
 any longer a leader; and if he will lead the class whether I will 
 or no, I require you to put him out of our society. If twenty of 
 his class will leave the society too, they must. The first loss 
 is the best. Better forty members should be lost than our 
 discipline be lost. They are no Methodists that will bear no re- 
 straints. Explain this at large to the society." 1 
 
 Thus the affair stood when the Conference met in 
 August, 1782, when the Conference took the action 
 already mentioned. At the same Conference Dr. 
 Coke was appointed to visit the societies throughout 
 England, so far as necessary, in order to have all the 
 preaching-houses settled on the Conference plan, and 
 the respective assistants were requested to give him 
 all the support in their power. 2 
 
 Dr. Coke very promptly took up the Birstal 
 case. He wrote to one of the trustees, and shortly 
 
 i Methodist Magazine, 1824, p. 307; Tyerman, Life of John Wesley 
 Vol. Ill, p. 383. 
 
 Wesleyan Polity, 3d Ed. p. 594. 
 
WESLEY'S FINAL PLAN. 55 
 
 after published a 12mo tract of twelve pages, en- 
 titled "An Address to the Inhabitants of Birstal 
 and the Adjacent Villages," in which he relates 
 how the attorney of the trustees secured Wesley's 
 signature to the deed, tells that the "amazing deed" 
 had been discussed and had created alarm in the re- 
 cent Conference, and that he had been delegated to 
 carry into execution the minute which had been passed. 1 
 
 The idea of housing the Birstal society in a new 
 chapel to be built close to the other, and leaving the 
 trustees with an empty building, was unique and he- 
 roic; but Mr. Wesley was determined. So he writes 
 to Samuel Bradburn, then stationed at Bradford : 
 " Birstal is a leading case, the first of an avowed vio- 
 lation of our plan. Therefore the point must be car- 
 ried for the Methodist preachers now or never; and 
 I alone can carry it, which I will, God being my 
 helper." 2 
 
 Wesley in his paper on " The Case of Birstal 
 House," issued January 3, 1783, argues with great ve- 
 hemence against such a deed and against such power 
 in trustees. Thus he says: 
 
 "Because, whenever the trustees exert their .power of 
 1 placing and displacing preachers,' then, 
 
 " 1. Itinerant preaching is no more. When the trustees in 
 any place have found and fixed a preacher they like, the ro- 
 tation of preachers is at an end ; at least, till they are tired of 
 their favorite preacher, and so turn him out. 
 
 " 2. While he stays, is not the bridle in his mouth ? How 
 dares he speak the full and the whole truth, since, whenever 
 
 i Tyerman, Life of John Wesley, Vol. Ill, p. 379. 
 Wesley's Works, Eng. Ed., Vol. XII, p. 138. 
 
56 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 he displeases the trustees, he is liable to lose his bread ? How 
 much less will he dare to put a trustee, though ever so un- 
 godly, out of the society ! . . . 
 
 " 4. The power of the trustees is greater than that of any 
 nobleman ; yea, or of the king himself . Where he is patron he can 
 put in a preacher, but he can not put him out. ... I am 
 not pleading my own cause. ... I am pleading for Mr. 
 Taylor, Mr. Bradburn, Mr. Benson, and for every other travel- 
 ing preacher, that you may be as free, after I am gone hence, 
 as you are now I am at your head ; that you may never be 
 liable to be turntd out of any or all of our houses without any 
 reason given, but that so is the pleasure of twenty or thirty 
 men. . . . 
 
 " I insist upon that point, and let everything else go. No 
 Methodist trustees, if I can help it, shall, after my death, any 
 more than while I live, have the power of placing and displac- 
 ing the preachers." 1 
 
 Dr. Coke went so far as to purchase a piece of 
 ground on which to erect a new and properly deeded 
 chapel ; but after considerable parleying, a compromise 
 was made, and the matter amicably adjusted, the trus- 
 tees executing a new deed, which gave the Conference 
 power to appoint the preachers. 2 
 
 The discussion and the result probably had a salu- 
 tary effect in preserving uniformity; but the other 
 question namely, the title of the Conference to the 
 use of the chapels after the death of Mr. Wesley con- 
 tinued to give the preachers great uneasiness. 
 
 " They were safe during his life, as the various 
 deeds specified that he, by name, should appoint the 
 preachers from time to time. The generality of those 
 deeds specified also, that, after his death, the Confer- 
 
 i Wesley's Works, Amer. Ed , Vol. VII, p. 328. 
 
 See Tyerman's Wesley, pp. 373-382 ; Peirce's Wesleyan Polity, p. 594. 
 
WESLEY'S FINAI, PLAN. 57 
 
 ence of the people called Methodists should appoint 
 preachers in like manner. Some of the deeds had no 
 reference to any posthumous appointment, and so 
 would have been completely in the power of the 
 trustees at Mr. Wesley's decease. Several, even, of 
 those trustees where the chapels were settled according 
 to the Methodist plan did not scruple to say 'that 
 the Conference was not an assembly that the law 
 would recognize, and that, therefore, they would, after 
 Mr. Wesley's death, appoint whom they should think 
 proper.' One of these said to me, ' They might ap- 
 point a popish priest if they should think it proper.' " l 
 
 Dr. Coke, as well as others, soon saw that what 
 was needed was a legal description or definition of the 
 phrase, "The Conference of the people called Meth- 
 odists," which appeared in the regularly drawn deeds. 
 Without a legal definition of the term Conference, 
 made before the death of Mr. Wesley, his decease 
 would throw British Methodism into a chaotic con- 
 dition. Wesley was almost eighty, and no time 
 should be lost. 
 
 Dr. Coke thus tells the story of the effort which 
 immediately grew out of the excitement of 1782 : 
 
 "In the Conference held in the year 1782 several com- 
 plaints were made in respect to the danger in which we were 
 situated from the want of specifying, in distinct and legai 
 terms, what was meant by the term, ' The Conference of the 
 people called Methodists.' Indeed, the preachers seemed uni- 
 versally alarmed, and many expressed their fears that divisions 
 would take place among us after the death of Mr. Wesley on 
 
 1 Rev. Henry Moore, Life of John Wesley, Aiiier. Ed., Vol. II, 
 p. 246. 
 
 5 
 
53 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 this account ; and the whole body of preachers present seemed 
 to wish that some methods might be taken to remove this 
 danger, which appeared to be pregnant with evils of the first 
 magnitude. 
 
 " In consequence of this (the subject lying heavy on my 
 heart), I desired Mr. Clulow, of Chancery Lane, London, to 
 draw up such a case as I judged sufficient, and then to present 
 it to that very eminent counselor, Mr. Maddocks, for his 
 opinion. This was accordingly done, and Mr. Maddocks in- 
 formed us, in his answer, that the deeds of our preaching, 
 houses were in the situation we dreaded ; that the law would 
 not recognize the Conference in the state in which it stood at 
 that time, and, consequently, that there was no central point 
 which might preserve the connection from splitting into 
 a thousand pieces after the death of Mr. Wesley. To prevent 
 this, he observed that Mr. Wesley should enroll a deed in 
 chancery, which deed should specify the persons by name who 
 composed the Conference, together with the mode of succes- 
 sion for its perpetuity ; and at the same time such regulations 
 be established by the deed as Mr. Wesley would wish the Con- 
 ference should be governed by, after his death. 
 
 " This opinion of Mr. Maddocks I read in the Conference 
 of 1783. The whole Conference seemed grateful to me for pro- 
 curing the opinion, and expressed their wishes that such a 
 deed might be drawn up and executed by Mr. Wesley as 
 should agree with the advice of that great lawyer, as soon as 
 possible." l 
 
 The following is the case submitted to the bar- 
 rister, Mr. Maddocks, and his opinion upon it : 
 
 " Your opinion is requested. 
 
 " Will the general description in the ' Deeds of the yearly 
 Conferences of the People called Methodists, in London,' etc., 
 together with the constant usage before mentioned, be- suffi- 
 cient marks of identity, personal and legal description, of the 
 very persons who actually do compose the Conference, as to 
 carry the exercise of the trust fully into them, and safely 
 through them into their appointees, so effectually as to enable 
 
 l Drew's Life of Coke, Amer. Ed., pp. 47, 48. 
 
WESLEY'S FINAL PLAN. 59 
 
 such appointees to maintain and enforce their right to the 
 benefit of the trusts in case of resistance on the part of the 
 trustees, or any other persons? If not, what means would you 
 advise to be taken for the aforesaid purposes ? 
 
 " Answer : 
 
 " As to the means of fixing the sense of the word Confer- 
 ence, and defining what persons are to be members of the Con- 
 ference, and how the body is to be continued in succession, 
 and to identify it, I think Mr. John Wesley should prepare and 
 subscribe a declaration for that purpose, to be enrolled in the 
 Court of Chancery for safe custody, naming the present mem- 
 bers, and prescribing the mode of election to fill vacancies, 
 and making the minutes or memorials of their proceedings, 
 signed by their secretary, evidence of such elections, to which 
 declaration of Mr. Wesley, so enrolled, all the trust deeds 
 should refer. JOHN MADDOCKS. 
 
 " Lincoln's Trm, December o, 1183." l 
 
 Dr. Coke thus narrates his further connection with 
 the affair : 
 
 " Soon after the Conference was ended, Mr. Wesley author- 
 ized me to draw up, with the assistance of Mr. Clulow, all the 
 leading parts of a deed, which should answer the above-men- 
 tioned purposes. This we did with much care, and, as for my- 
 self, I can truly say with fear and trembling, receiving Mr. 
 Maddocks's advice in respect to every step we took, and laying 
 the whole ultimately at Mr. Wesley's feet for his approbation, 
 there remained now nothing but to insert the names of those 
 who were to constitute the Conference." 2 
 
 The result was, that Mr. Wesley, after making a 
 thorough examination of the case under the best 
 legal advice, signed a formal document in which he 
 named one hundred ministers and preachers who 
 should constitute the legal Conference. 
 
 i Peirce's Wesleyan Polity, 3d Ed , pp. 22, 23. 
 a Drew's Life of Coke, Amer. Ed., p. 48. 
 
60 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 This document is known as the " Deed of Decla- 
 ration," called in legal phraseology, a " Deed Poll," 
 to indicate that it is made by one party only, in con- 
 tradistinction to an " Indenture," which is a deed be- 
 tween two or more parties; the paper or parchment 
 in the former case being polled or shaved even, while 
 in the latter the edges were indented for identifica- 
 tion and security. 
 
 The following is the celebrated Deed of Decla- 
 ration in question : 
 
 MR. WESLEY'S DEED OF DECLARATION. 
 Enrolled in His 1 Majesty's High Court oC Chancery. 
 
 da all to IDfjnm 9lIjEB presEtifg ^Ijall (dome, JOHN 
 
 WESLEY, Late of Lincoln College, Oxford, but Now of the 
 
 City Road, London, Clerk, Sendeth Greeting: 
 
 " Whereas divers buildings, commonly called chapels, with 
 a messuage and dwelling-house, or other appurtenances, to 
 each of the same belonging, situate in various parts of Great 
 Britain, have been given and conveyed, from time to time, by 
 the same John Wesley, to certain persons and their heirs, in 
 each of the said gifts and conveyances named, which are en- 
 rolled in his majesty's High Court of Chancery, upon the ac- 
 knowledgment of the said John AVesley (pursuant to the Act of 
 Parliament in that case made and provided) ; upon trust, that 
 the trustees in the said several deeds respectively named, and the 
 survivors of them, and their heirs and ass'gns, and the trustees 
 for the time being, to be elected as in the said deeds is appointed, 
 should permit and suffer the said John AVesley, and such other 
 person and persons as he should for that purpose from time to 
 time nominate and appoint, at all times during his life, at Irs 
 will and pleasure to have and enjoy the free use and benefit of 
 the said premises, that he, the said John Wesley, and such 
 person and persons as he should nominate and appoint, might 
 therein preach and expound God's Holy Word ; and, upon 
 further trust, that the -said respective trustees, and the stir- 
 
WESLEY'S DEED OF DECLARATION. 61 
 
 vivors of them, and their heirs and assigns, and the trustees 
 for the time being, should permit and suffer Charles Wesley, 
 brother of the said John Wesley, and such other person and 
 persons as the said Charles Wesley should for that purpose 
 from time to time nominate and appoint, in like manner during 
 his life, to have, use, and enjoy the said premises respectively, 
 for the like purposes aforesaid, and after the decease of the sur- 
 vivor of them, the said John Wesley and Charles Wesley, then, 
 upon further trust, that the said respective trustees, and the sur- 
 vivors of them, and their heirs and assigns, and the trustees 
 for the time being forever, should permit and suffer such per- 
 son and persons, and for such time and times, as should be 
 appointed at the yearly Conference of the people called Meth- 
 odists, in London, Bristol, or Leeds, and no others, to have and 
 enjoy the said premises for the purposes aforesaid; and whereas 
 divers persons have, in like manner, given or conveyed many 
 chapels, with messuages and dwelling houses, or other appur- 
 tenances, to the same belonging, situate in various parts of 
 Great Britain and also in Ireland, to certain trustees, in each 
 of the said gifts and conveyances respectively named, upon the 
 like trusts, and for the same uses and purposes aforesaid (ex- 
 cept only that in some of the said gifts and conveyances, no 
 life estate or other interest is therein or thereby given and re- 
 served to the said Charles Wesley) ; and whereas, for render- 
 ing effectual the trusts created by the said several gifts or 
 conveyances, and that no doubt or litigation may arise with 
 respect unto the same, or the interpretation and true meaning 
 thereof, it has been thought expedient by the said John Wes- 
 ley, on behalf of himself as donor of the several chapels, with 
 the messuages, dwelling-houses, or appurtenances before men- 
 tioned, as if the donors of the said other chapels, with the 
 messuages, dwelling-houses or appurtenances, to the same be- 
 longing, given or conveyed to the like uses or trusts, to explain 
 the words ' Yearly Conference of the People called Methodists' 
 contained in all the said trust deeds, and to declare what per- 
 sons are members of the said Conference, and how the suc- 
 cession and identity thereof is to be continued. 
 
 " Now, therefore, these presents witness, that, for accom- 
 plishing the aforesaid purposes, the said John Wesley doth 
 hereby declare that the Conference of the people called Meth- 
 
62 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 odists, in London, Bristol, or Leeds, ever since there hath been 
 any Yearly Conference of the said People called Methodists, 
 in any of the said places, hath always heretofore consisted of 
 the preachers and expounders of God's Holy Word, commonly 
 called Methodist preachers, in connection with, and under the 
 care of, the said John Wesley, whom he hath thought ex- 
 pedient year after year to summon to meet him, in one or 
 other of the said places, of London, Bristol, or Leeds, to 
 advise with them for the promotion of the gospel of Christ, 
 to appoint the said persons so summoned, and the other 
 preachers and expounders of God's Holy Word, also in con- 
 nection with, and under the care of, the said John Wesley, 
 not summoned to the said yearly Conference, to'the use* and 
 enjoyment of the said chapels and premises so given and con- 
 veyed upon trust for the said John Wesley and such other 
 person and persons as he should appoint during his life as 
 aforesaid, and for the expulsion of unworthy and admission of 
 new persons under his care, and into his connection, to be 
 preachers and expounders as aforesaid, and also of other per- 
 sons upon trial for the like purposes ; the names of all which 
 persons so summoned by the said John Wesley, the persons 
 appointed, with the chapels and premises to which they were 
 so appointed, together with the duration of such appoint- 
 ments, and of those expelled or admitted into connection or 
 upon trial with all other matters transacted and done at the 
 said yearly Conference, have year by year, been printed and 
 published under the title of ' Minutes of Conference.' 
 
 "And these presents further witness, and the said John 
 Wesley doth hereby avouch and further declare, that the sev- 
 eral persons hereinafter named ; to-wit, the said John Wesley 
 and Charles Wesley ; Thomas Coke, of the city of London, 
 Doctor of Civil Law; James Creighton, of the same place, 
 clerk ; Thomas Tennant, of the same place ; Thomas Rankin, 
 of the same place; Joshua Keighley, of Sevenoaks, in the 
 county of Kent; John Booth, of Colchester; Thomas Cooper, 
 of the same place.; Richard Whatcoat, of Norwich ; Jeremiah 
 Brettel, of Lynn, in the county of Norfolk ; Jonathan Parkin, 
 of the same place ; Joseph Pescod, of Bedford ; Christopher 
 Watkins, of Northampton ; John Barber, of the same place ; 
 John Broadbent, of Oxford ; Joseph Cole, of the same place ; 
 
WESLEY'S DEED OF DECLARATION. 63 
 
 Jonathan Cousins, of the city of Gloucester; John Brettel, of 
 the same place ; John Mason, of Salisbury ; George Story, of 
 the same place ; Francis Wrigley, of St. Austle, in the county 
 of Cornwall; William Green, of the city of Bristol; John 
 Moon, of Plymouth Dock; James Hall, of the same place; 
 James Thorn, of St. Austle, aforesaid ; Joseph Taylor, of Red- 
 ruth, in the said county of Cornwall; William Hoskins, of 
 Cardiff, Glamorganshire; John Leech, of Brecon; William 
 Saunders, of the same place ; Richard Rodda, of Birmingham ; 
 John Fenwick, of Burslem, Staffordshire ; Thomas Hanby, of 
 the same place ; James Rogers, of Macclesfield ; Samuel Bards- 
 ley, of the same place ; John Murlin, of Manchester ; William 
 Percival, of the same place; Duncan Wright, of the city of 
 Chester; John Goodwin, of the same place; Parson Green- 
 wood, of Liverpool; Zechariah Udall, of the same place; 
 Thomas Vasey, of the same place ; Joseph Bradford, of Leices- 
 ter ; Jeremiah Robertshaw, of the same place ; William Myles, 
 of Nottingham ; Thomas Longley, of Derby ; Thomas Taylor, 
 of Sheffield; William Simpson, of the same place; Thomas 
 Carlill, of Grimsby, in the county of Lincoln ; Robert Scott, 
 of the same place ; Joseph Harper, of the same place ; Thomas 
 Corbit, of Gainsborough, in the county of Lincoln ; James 
 Ray, of the same place ; William Thompson, of Leeds, in the 
 county of York ; Robert Roberts, of the same place ; Samuel 
 Bradburn, of the same place ; John Valton, of Birstal, in the 
 said county ; John Allen, of the same place ; Isaac Brown, of 
 the same- place; Thomas Hanson, of Huddersfield, in the 
 said county; John Shaw, of the same place; Alexander 
 Mather, of Bradford, in the said county ; Joseph Benson, of 
 Halifax, in the said county; William Dufton, of the same 
 place ; Benjamin Rhodes, of Keighley, in the said county ; John 
 Easton, of Colne, in the county of Lancaster ; Robert Costerdine, 
 of the same place ; Jasper Robinson, of the Isle of Man ; George 
 Button, of the same place ; John Pawson, of the city of York ; 
 Edward Jackson, of Hull ; Charles Atmore, of the said city of 
 York; Lancelot Harrison, of Scarborough; George Shadford of 
 Hull aforesaid ; Barnabas Thomas, of the same place ; Thomas 
 Briscoe, of Yarm, in the said county of York ; Christopher Pea- 
 cock, of the same place ; William Thorn, of Whitby, in the said 
 county of York ; Robert, Hopkins, of the same place ; John Pea- 
 
64 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 cock, of Barnard Castle ; William Collins, of Sunderland ; Thomas 
 Dixon, of Newcastle- upon-Tyne; Christopher Hopper, of the 
 same place; William Booth by, of the same place; William 
 Hunter, of Berwick-upon-Tweed ; Joseph Saunderson, of Dun- 
 dee, Scotland ; William Warrener, of the same place ; Duncan 
 M'Allum, of Aberdeen, Scotland ; Thomas Rutherford, of the 
 city of Dublin, in the kingdom of Ireland ; Daniel Jackson, of 
 the same place ; Henry Moore, of the city of Cork, Ireland; An- 
 drew Blair, of the same place ; Richard Watkinson, of Limer- 
 ick, Ireland; Nehemiah Price, of Athlone, Ireland; Robert 
 Lindsay, of Sligo, Ireland ; George Brown, of Clones, Ireland ; 
 Thomas Barber, of Charlemont, Ireland; Henry Foster, of 
 Belfast, Ireland ; and John Crook, of Lisburne, Ireland, gentle- 
 men being preachers and expounders of God's Holy Word, 
 under the care and in connection with the said John Wesley, 
 have been, and now are and do, on the day of the date hereof, 
 constitute the members of the said Conference, according to 
 the true intent and meaning of the said several gifts and con- 
 veyances wherein the words, 'Conference of the people called 
 Methodists,' are mentioned and contained ; and that the said 
 several persons before-named, and their successors forever, to 
 be chosen as hereafter mentioned, are and shall forever be 
 construed, taken, and be the Conference of the people called 
 Methodists. Nevertheless, upon the terms and subject to the 
 regulations hereinafter prescribed ; that is to say, 
 
 "First. That the members of the said Conference and 
 their successors, for the time being forever, shall assemble y 
 once in every year, at London, Bristol, or Leeds (except as 
 after mentioned), for the purposes aforesaid ; -and the time and 
 place of holding every subsequent Conference shall be ap- 
 pointed at the preceding one, save that the next Conference 
 after the date hereof shall be holden at Leeds, in Yorkshire, 
 the last Tuesday in July next. 
 
 " Second. The act of the majority in number of the Con- 
 ference assembled as aforesaid shall be had, taken, and be the 
 act of the whole Conference to all intents, purposes, and con- 
 structions whatsoever. 
 
 "Third. That after the Conference shall be assembled as 
 aforesaid, they shall first proceed to fill up all the vacancies "' 
 occasioned by death or absence, as after mentioned. 
 
WESLEY s DEED OF DECLARATION. 65 
 
 "Fourth. No act of the Conference assembled as afore- 
 said shall be had, taken, or be the act of the Conference until 
 forty of the members thereof are assembled, unless reduced ; 
 under that number by death since the prior Conference, or 
 absence as after mentioned, nor until all the vacancies occa- 
 sioned by death or absence shall be filled up by the election 
 of new members of the Conference, so as to make up the 
 number one hundred, unless there be not a sufficient number * 
 of persons objects of such election ; and during the assembly 
 of the Conference, there shall always be forty members pres- 
 ent at the doing of any act, save as aforesaid, or otherwise such 
 act shall be void. 
 
 " Fifth. The duration of the yearly assembly of the Con- 
 ference shall not be less than five days, nor more than three ^ 
 weeks, and be concluded by the appointment of the Confer- 
 ence, if under twenty-one days; or, otherwise, the conclusion 
 thereof shall follow, of course, at the end of the said twenty- 
 one days ; the whole of all which said time of the assembly of 
 the Conference shall be had, taken, considered, and be the 
 yearly Conference of the people called Methodists; and all 
 acts of the Conference, during such yearly assembly thereof, 
 shall be the acts of the Conference, and none other. 
 
 "Sixth. Immediately after all the vacancies occasioned by 
 death or absence are filled up by the election of new members, 
 as aforesaid, the Conference shall choose a president and secre- 
 tary of their assembly out of themselves, who shall continue 
 such until the election of another president or secretary in the 
 next or other subsequent Conference ; and the said president 
 shall have the privilege and power of two members in all acts 
 of the Conference during his presidency, and such other powers, 
 privileges, and authorities as the Conference shall from time 
 to time see fit to intrust into his hands. 
 
 "Seventh. Any member of the Conference absenting 
 himself from the yearly assembly thereof for two years suc- 
 cessively, without the consent of or dispensation of the Con- 
 ference, and be not present on the first day of the third yearly 
 assembly thereof, at the time and place appointed for the 
 holding of the same, shall cease to be a member of the Con- ' 
 ference from and after the said first day of the said third 
 yearly assembly thereof, to all intents and purposes, as though 
 
66 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 he were naturally dead. But the Conference shall and may 
 dispense with, or consent to the absence of any member from 
 any of the said yearly assemblies for any cause which the said 
 Conference may see fit or necessary; and such member, whose 
 absence shall be so dispensed with or consented to by the Con- 
 ference, shall not, by such absence, cease to be a member thereof. 
 
 " Eighth. The Conference shall and may expel and put 
 out from being a member thereof, or from being in connection 
 therewith, or from being upon trial, any person, member of the 
 Conference, or admitted into connection or upon trial, for any 
 cause which to the Conference may seem fit or necessary ; and 
 every member of the Conference so expelled and put out 
 shall cease to be a member thereof, to all intents and pur- 
 poses, as though he was naturally dead. And the Conference, 
 immediately after the expulsion of any member thereof as 
 aforesaid, shall elect another person to be a member of the 
 Conference in the stead of such member so expelled. 
 
 "Ninth. The Conference shall and may admit into con- 
 nection with them, or upon trial, any person or persons whom 
 they shall approve to be preachers and expounders of God's 
 Holy Word, under the care and direction of the Conference ; 
 the name of every such person or persons so admitted into 
 connection or upon trial, as aforesaid, with the time and de- 
 grees of the admission, being entered in the Journals or Min- 
 utes of the Conference. 
 
 " Tenth. No person shall be elected a member of the Con- 
 ference M r ho hath not been admitted into connection with the 
 Conference, as a preacher and expounder of God's Holy Word, 
 as aforesaid, for twelve months. 
 
 " Eleventh. The Conference shall not, nor may, nominate or 
 appoint any person to the use and enjoyment of, or to preach 
 and expound God's Holy Word, in any of the chapels and 
 premises so given or conveyed, or which may be given or 
 conveyed, upon the trusts aforesaid, who is not either a 
 member of the Conference, or admitted into connection with 
 the same, or upon trial, as aforesaid ; nor appoint any per- 
 son for more than three years successively to the use and en- 
 joyment of any chapel and premises already given, or to be 
 given or conveyed upon the trusts aforesaid, except ordained 
 ministers of the Church of England. 
 
WESLKY'S DEED OF DECLARATION. 67 
 
 " Twelfth. That the Conference shall and may appoint 
 the place of holding the early assembly thereof at any other 
 city, town, or place than London, Bristol, or Leeds, when it 
 shall seem expedient so to do. 
 
 "Thirteenth. And for the convenience of the chapels 
 and premises already, or which may hereafter be given or con- 
 veyed upon the trusts aforesaid, situate in Ireland or other 
 parts out of the Kingdom of Great Britain, the Conference shall 
 and may, when and as often as it shall seem expedient, but not 
 otherwise, appoint and delegate any member or members of 
 the Conference with all or any of the powers, privileges, and 
 advantages, herein before contained or vested in the Confer- 
 ence ; and all and every the acts, admissions, expulsions, and 
 appointments whatsoever of such member or members of the 
 Conference, so appointed and delegated as aforesaid, the same 
 being put into writing and signed by such delegate or dele- 
 gates, and entered into the Journals or Minutes of the Confer- 
 ence, and subscribed as after mentioned, shall be deemed, 
 taken, and be the acts, admissions, expulsions, and appoint- 
 ments of the Conference to all intents, constructions, and pur- 
 poses whatsoever, from the respective times when the same 
 shall be done by such delegate or delegates, notwithstanding 
 anything herein contained to the contrary. 
 
 "Fourteenth. All resolutions and orders touching elec- 
 tions, admissions, expulsions, consents, dispensations, dele- 
 gations, or appointments and acts whatsoever of the Confer- 
 ence, shall be entered and written in the Journals or Minutes 
 of the Conference, which shall be kept for that purpose, pub- 
 licly read, and then subscribed by the president and secretary 
 thereof for the time being, during the time such Conference 
 shall be assembled; and when so entered and subscribed, 
 shall be had, taken, received, and be the acts of the Confer- 
 ence, and such entry and subscription as aforesaid shall be 
 had, taken, received, and be evidence of all and every such 
 acts of the said Conference, and of their said delegates, with- 
 out the aid of any other proof; and whatever shall not be so 
 entered and subscribed as aforesaid, shall not be had, taken, 
 received, or be the act of the Conference ; and the said president 
 and secretary are hereby required and obliged to enter and 
 subscribe, as aforesaid, every act whatever of the Conference. 
 
68 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 " Lastly. Whenever the said Conference shall be reduced 
 under the number of forty members, and continue so reduced 
 for three yearly assemblies thereof, successively, or whenever the 
 members thereof shall decline or neglect to meet together annu- 
 ally for the purposes aforesaid during the space of three years, 
 that then, and in either of the said events, the Conference of 
 the people called Methodists shall be extinguished, and all the 
 aforesaid powers, privileges, and advantages shall cease, and 
 the said chapels and premises and all other chapels and 
 premises, which now are or hereafter may be settled, given, 
 or conveyed upon the trust aforesaid, shall vest in the trustees 
 for the time being of the said chapels and premises respect- 
 ively, and their successors .forever; upon trust, that they and 
 the survivors of them, and the trustees for the time being do, 
 shall, and may appoint such person and persons to preach and 
 expound God's Holy Word therein, and to have the use and en- 
 joyment thereof, for such time and in such manner as to them 
 shall seem proper: 
 
 "Provided, always, that nothing herein contained shall ex- 
 tend or be construed to extend, to extinguish, lessen, or abridge 
 the life estate of the said John Wesley and Charles Wesley, or 
 either of them, of, and in, any of the said chapels and premises, 
 or any other chapels and premises wherein they, the said John 
 Wesley and Charles Wesley, or either of them, now have, or 
 may have, any estate or interest, power, or authority whatsoever. 
 
 " In Witness Whereof, the said John Wesley hath hereunto 
 
 set his hand and seal the twenty- eighth day of February, in 
 
 the twenty-fourth year of the reign of oiir sovereign lord, 
 
 George the Third, by the grace of God, of Great Britain, 
 
 France, and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, and so forth, 
 
 and in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and 
 
 eighty-four. JOHN WESLEY. 
 
 "Sealed and delivered (being first duly stamped) in 
 
 the presence of 
 
 " WILLIAM CLULOW, Quality Court, Chancery Lane, London. 
 
 " RICHARD YOUNG, clerk to the said William Clulow. 
 
 " Taken and acknowledged by the Kev. John Wes^y, 
 party thereto, this 28th of February, 1784, at the public office, 
 before me, EDWARD MONTAGU. 
 
WESLEY'S DEED OF DECLARATION. 69 
 
 " The above is a true copy of the original Deed (which is 
 enrolled in Chancery) and was therewith examined by us. 
 
 " WILLIAM CLULOW. 
 "RICHARD YOUNG. 
 
 "ENDORSEMENT. 
 "Dated Feb. 28th, 1784. 
 
 " CLULOW. 
 
 "The Rev. John Wesley's Declaration and Appointment of 
 the Conference of the people called Methodists, enrolled in 
 His Majesty's High Court of Chancery, the ninth day of March, 
 in the year of our Lord 1784, being first duly stamped accord- 
 ing to the tenor of the statutes made for that purpose. 
 
 " THOMAS BuiGSTOCK." 1 
 
 This legal instrument has been called the 
 "Magna Charta of Methodism." Certainly it was 
 the Magna Charta of British Methodism; and, though 
 various attempts have been made to set it aside, its 
 validity has been confirmed by the highest judicial 
 authorities. 2 It gave a legal definition of the term 
 "the Conference of the People called Methodists," 
 and so secured title to the chapel property, and pre- 
 vented British Methodism being broken up into iso- 
 lated congregational Churches, which might have had 
 only an ephemeral existence. 
 
 Dr. Beecham, in his essay on the " Constitution 
 of Methodism," states that " its object was to give 
 such a legal specification of the Conference as would 
 ever secure for that assembly, in the exercise of its 
 right of appointing preachers to the chapels, the pro- 
 tection of the law of the land." But its effect was 
 even more than this ; for it gave the Conference a 
 
 i Wesley's Works, Aiuer. Ed., Vol. IV, pp. 753-759. 
 
 2 Pierce's Eccl. Principles and Polity of Wesieyun Methodism, p. 21. 
 
70 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 legal existence, and also endowed it with the supreme 
 power which had been centered in Mr. Wesley. By 
 this act the Rev. John Wesley transferred to the Con- 
 ference of Methodist ministers supreme legislative, 
 judicial, and executive authority over both preachers 
 and people called Methodists. The deed made it 
 necessary for the Conference to meet annually, and 
 made the vote of the majority the act of the whole 
 Conference. It also provided for the filling of va- 
 cancies, and specified other points essential to the 
 continuance of the Conference. 
 
 The Conference did not assume this power until 
 the decease of Mr. Wesley ; but it marked an era in 
 British MethodLsm when, for the first time, this dec- 
 laration of power in the Conference, and this recog- 
 nition of the right and power to determine questions 
 by a majority vote, was enrolled in the High Court of 
 Chancery, as was done in London, on the 28th day of 
 February, in the year of our Lord 1784. 
 
 Dr. Coke promptly sent copies of the Deed of Dec- 
 laration to the principal preachers on the circuits. 
 Probably he did this on his own notion, for he writes: 
 "All things necessary being completed in the Court 
 of Chancery according to law, I thought it my duty 
 to send copies of the deed to all assistants of circuits 
 throughout Great Britain, and I afterward carried 
 copies of it to Ireland. 77 
 
 There was one point in the deed, however, which 
 soon provoked criticism, and that was the part which 
 
 i Drew's Life of Coke, Amer. Ed., pp. 48, 49. 
 
WESLEY'S DEED OF DECLARATION. 71 
 
 recited that one hundred preachers should be the 
 legal Conference. At once those who were not 
 named feared that the "legal hundred" would take 
 advantage of them. 
 
 One who came in for his share of blame was Dr. 
 Coke, 1 probably because of the activity he had shown 
 in securing the deed, and also because of the confi- 
 dence reposed in him by Mr. Wesley. Dr. Coke, 
 however, disclaimed any responsibility for the limited 
 number. As already 'cited, Dr. Coke left the deed 
 with Mr. Wesley in such a state of completion that 
 " there remained now nothing but to insert the names 
 of those who were to constitute the Conference." 
 Then Dr. Coke relates that " Mr. Wesley then de- 
 clared that he would limit the number to one hun- 
 dred. This was, indeed, contrary to my very humble 
 opinion, which was that every preacher in full con- 
 nection should be a member of the Conference, and 
 that admission into full connection should be looked 
 upon as admission into full membership with the 
 Conference; and I still believe it will be most for 
 the glory of God and the peace of our Zion that the 
 members of the Conference admit the other preachers 
 who are in full connection, and are present at the Confer- 
 ence from time to time, to a full vote on all occasions. 
 However, of course, I submitted to the superior judg- 
 ment and authority of Wesley. But I do publicly 
 avow that I was not concerned in the limitation of 
 the number or the selection of the hundred preach- 
 
 i Rev. Henry Moore, Life of John Wesley, Vol. II, p. 240. 
 
72 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 ers who were nominated the members of the Confer- 
 
 ence." l 
 
 There is no doubt that Dr. Coke accurately stated 
 the case ; for when, at the first Conference after the 
 deed was enrolled, some of the preachers asserted 
 that it was the work of Dr. Coke, " Mr. Wesley only 
 replied to this in the words of Virgil: Non vult, non 
 potuit ' He had neither the will nor the power. 7 " 2 
 Dr. Coke appears to have had much to do with se- 
 curing the legal opinion, and suggesting points to be 
 recited in the deed, but there is no evidence that he 
 had anything to do with limiting the number to one 
 hundred or naming the hundred. 
 
 Individuals here and there expressed themselves 
 with considerable vehemence against the naming of 
 only one hundred, when there were one hundred and 
 ninety-two preachers altogether; and some maintained 
 that there was lack of equity in the selection, for the 
 names of some of the senior and respectable preach- 
 ers had been omitted, and the names of younger men 
 were inserted. 
 
 Naturally, those who were not named in the deed 
 were exceedingly grieved, and expressed their feelings 
 in various ways. 3 This serious crisis passed without 
 any other immediate consequences than the retire- 
 ment of the five principal opponents of the limitation 
 
 J Coke's Address to the Methodist Society in Great Britain and Ire- 
 land on the Settlement of the Preaching-houses, in Drew's Life of 
 Coke, Amer. Ed., p. 48. 
 
 2 Rev. Henry Moore, Life of John Wesley, Vol. II, p. 249. 
 
 8 Pawson's MS. Memoir of Whitehead ; Hnrnpson's Life of John 
 Wesley, 1791 ; Tyerrnan, Life of John Wesley, Vol. Ill, pp. 4-22-424. 
 
WESLEY'S DEED OF DECLARATION. 73 
 
 to one hundred; namely, John Hampson, Sr.; his 
 son, John Hampson, Jr. ; John Atlay, Joseph Pil- 
 moor, and William Eels, who had been in the Meth- 
 odist ministry thirty-one, six, twenty-one, nineteen, 
 and twelve years respectively, but whose names had 
 not been mentioned in the deed. 1 Mr. Fletcher's 
 friendly efforts effected a temporary reconciliation, 
 but it was of short duration; and it is supposed that 
 out of this matter of the deed grew the apparent bit- 
 terness manifested, in some instances, in Hampson's 
 " Memoirs of John Wesley," and also some of the 
 peculiarities of Whitehead's " Life of Wesley." 2 
 
 An incident which occurred about this time led 
 Mr. Wesley to make a full statement of the whole 
 affair. 
 
 At Plymouth Dock, William Moore had renounced 
 the Methodists and had secured a preaching-place of 
 his own, taking with him about forty members of the 
 old society. In view of this, Mr. Wesley was urged 
 to visit the place at once, which he did with great 
 promptness, reaching there on the 2d of March, 1785, 
 and on the evening of the 3d he says: "I read to 
 the whole congregation a plain statement of the case, 
 with regard to the 'Deed of Declaration/ which 
 William Moore had so wonderfully misrepresented; 
 and I believe they were all fully satisfied." 3 This 
 evidently was the paper afterward published under 
 
 1 Tyerman's Life of John Wesley, Vol. Ill, pp. 422, 423; Whitehead's 
 Life of John Wesley, Jones's Dublin Ed., pp. 39S, 399. 
 
 2 Whitehead's Wesley, Dublin Ed., Vol. II, pp. 398, 399; Henry 
 Moore, Life of Wesley, Vol. II, pp. 248, 249 
 
 Wesley's Journal, Wesley's Works, Amer. Ed., Vol. IV, p. (JOS, 
 G 
 
74 GOVERNING CONFERENCE: IN METHODISM. 
 
 the title, "Thoughts upon Some Late Occurrences," 
 and dated Plymouth Dock, March 3, 1785, part of 
 which we have already quoted in another con- 
 nection. 
 
 In this statement he explains the origin and na- 
 ture of the Conferences which he had called together 
 annually, showing that all power was lodged in him- 
 self, and that the Conference, called at his pleasure, 
 was simply invited to confer with him. Continuing, 
 he says : 
 
 "Some years after it was agreed that, after the decease of 
 my brother and me, the preachers should be stationed by the 
 Conference. But erelong a question arose: What does that 
 term mean ? Who are the Conference ? It appeared difficult 
 to define the term. And the year before last, all our brethren 
 who were met at Bristol desired me to fix the determinate 
 meaning of the word. 
 
 "Hitherto it had meant, not the whole body of traveling 
 preachers (it never bore that meaning at all), but those per- 
 sons whom I invited yearly to confer with me. But to this 
 there was a palpable objection such a Conference would 
 have no being after my death. And what other definition of 
 it to give, I knew not ; at least, I knew none that would stand 
 good in law. I consulted a skillful and honest attorney, and 
 he consulted an eminent counselor, who answered : ' There is 
 no way of doing this but by naming a determinate number of 
 persons. The deed which names these must be enrolled in 
 chancery; then it will stand good in law.' 
 
 " My first thought was to name a very few, suppose ten 
 or twelve persons. Count Zinzendorf named only six, who 
 were to preside over the community after his decease. But, 
 on second thoughts, I believed there would be more safety in 
 a greater number of counselors, and therefore named a hun- 
 dred as many as I judged could meet without too great an 
 expense, and without leaving any circuit naked of preachers 
 while the Conference met. 
 
WESLEY'S DEED OF DECLARATION. 75 
 
 "In naming these preachers, as I had no adviser, so I had 
 no respect of persons ; but I simply set down those that, ac- 
 cording to the best ef my judgment, were most proper. But 
 I am not infallible. I might mistake, and think better of 
 some of them than they deserved. However, I did my best ; 
 and if I did wrong it was not the error of my will, but of my 
 judgment. 
 
 "This was the rise and this is the nature of that famous 
 'Deed of Declaration' that vile, wicked deed ! concerning 
 which you have heard such an outcry. And now, can any 
 one tell me how to mend it, or how it could have been made 
 better? '0 yes, you might have inserted two hundred, as 
 well as one hundred preachers.' No, for then the expense of 
 meeting would have been double, and all the circuits would 
 have been without preachers. ' But you might have named 
 other preachers instead of these.' True, if I had thought as 
 well of them as they did of themselves. But I did not; there- 
 fore I could do no otherwise than I did, without sinning 
 against God and my own conscience. 
 
 "'But what need was there for any deed at all?' There 
 was the utmost need of it. Without some authentic deed 
 fixing the meaning of the term, the moment I died the Con- 
 ference had been nothing. Therefore any of the proprietors 
 of the land on which our preaching-houses were built might 
 have seized them for their own use, and there would have 
 been none to hinder them ; for the Conference would have 
 been nobody a mere empty name. 
 
 " You see, then, in all the pains I have taken about this 
 absolutely necessary deed I have been laboring, not for my- 
 self (I have no interest therein), but for the whole body of 
 Methodists, in order to fix them upon such a foundation as is 
 likely to stand as long as the sun and moon endure. That is, 
 if they continue to walk by faith, and to show forth their faith 
 by their works ; otherwise I pray God to root out the memorial 
 of them from the earth." l 
 
 It is quite probable that Mr. Wesley had not 
 much faith in the governing power of the promis- 
 
 1 "Thoughts upon Rome Late Occurrences," Wesley's Works, Ainer. 
 Ed., Vol. VII, pp. 309, 310. 
 
76 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 cuous mass, and preferred to trust the wisdom of a 
 smaller number of the ablest and most intelligent; 
 but whatever may be thought of his views in the 
 abstract, it must be admitted that he had made great 
 advances towards a more democratic government. 
 
 According to the plan proposed in 1769 the prop- 
 osition was, that after his death the Conference should 
 elect "a committee of three, five, or seven," in whom 
 should be vested the same power which Mr. Wesley 
 had possessed. Count Zinzendorf, in the case of the 
 Moravians, named only six. Mr. Wesley, therefore, 
 made a great advance on his own ideas, and a great 
 improvement on the example of Zinzendorf, when he 
 named one hundred persons to constitute the legal 
 Conference, among whom was to be diffused the su- 
 preme power which he had exerted. 
 
 Our instincts and training to-day would lead us to 
 believe that it would have been wiser for Mr. Wesley 
 to have included the name of every preacher in full 
 connection, but at the same time we must feel that 
 there is force in his explanation. To have inserted 
 all would have made a long list of names, and, as 
 Moore says, " There never had been so great a num- 
 ber [as one hundred] at any Conference, and generally 
 from twenty to thirty less, the number so fixed would 
 not, it was thought, have excited either surprise or 
 displeasure." l 
 
 It was a crisis in the history of British Method- 
 ism, but it was passed with comparative safety. Mr. 
 Wesley himself never intended any injustice to the 
 
 i Rev. Heury Moore, Life of John Wesley, Vol. II, p. 250. 
 
WKSLEY'S DEED OF DECLARATION. 77 
 
 ministers who were not named in the deed, and was 
 anxious to prevent any possible injury to them; so as 
 early as April, 1785, he wrote the following letter, 
 which he placed in the hands of one of the preachers 
 Mr. Joseph Bradford with instruction to deliver it to 
 the Conference at the first session immediately after 
 his decease: 
 
 " CHESTER, April 7, 1785. 
 " To the Methodist Conference: 
 
 "My DEAR BRETHREN, Some of our traveling preachers 
 have expressed a fear that, after my decease, you would ex- 
 clude them either from preaching in connection with you or 
 from some other privileges which they now enjoy. I know no 
 other way to prevent any such inconvenience than to leave 
 these, my last words, with you. I beseech you by the mercies 
 of God, that you never avail yourselves of the Deed of Decla- 
 ration to assume any superiority over your brethren, but let all 
 things go on among those itinerants who choose to remain to- 
 gether, exactly in the same manner as when I was with you, 
 so far as circumstances will permit. In particular, I beseech 
 you, if you ever loved me, and if you now love God and your 
 brethren, to have no respect of persons in stationing the 
 preachers, in choosing children for Kingswood School, in dis- 
 posing of the yearly contribution and the preachers' fund, or 
 any other public money. But do all things with a single e) r e, 
 as I have done from the beginning. Go on thus, doing all 
 things without prejudice or partiality, and God will be with 
 you even to the end. JOHN WESLEY." l 
 
 Of course, as long as Mr. Wesley lived the con- 
 tents of this paternal letter were private. 
 
 At the Conference of 1785, in order to quiet the 
 uneasiness and to defend Mr. Wesley, all the preachers 
 who were present signed the following declarations of 
 
 i Minutes 1791, Vol I, pp. 242, 243; Peirce's Wesleyan Polity, 3d Ed., 
 pp. 31, 32; Wm. Myles, Hist, of Methodists, London, 3d Ed. 1803, pp. 
 197, 198. 
 
78 GOVERNING CONFERENCE; IN METHODISM. 
 
 their approval of the substance and design of the 
 Deed of Declaration : 
 
 " LONDON, July 3, 1785. 
 
 " We, whose names are under written, do declare that Mr. 
 Wesley was desired at the last Bristol Conference, without a 
 dissentient voice, to draw up a deed which should give a le- 
 gal specification of the phrase ' The Conference of the People 
 called Methodists ;' and that the mode of doing it was en- 
 tirely left to his judgment and discretion. 
 
 " And we do also declare that we do approve of the sub- 
 stance and design of the deed which Mr. Wesley has accord- 
 ingly executed and enrolled. 
 
 " Thomas Coke, Thomas Hanby, John Pawson, John 
 Murlin, Thomas Taylor, John Broadbent, George Shadford, 
 Samuel Bradburn, Francis Wrigley, Duncan Wright, William 
 Thompson, John Valton, Alexander Mather, Thomas Rankin, 
 Eichard Rodda, Thomas Wride, Joseph Cole, Joseph Taylor, 
 James Wood, Benjamin Rhoades, Charles Boon, John Barber, 
 Joshua Keighley, Joseph Harper, William Collins, Thomas 
 Tennant, William Ashman, Simon Day, Thomas Warwick, 
 William Myles, Isaac Brown, Joseph Pescod, John Moon, John 
 Peacock, Christopher Watkins, William Green, John Easton, 
 George Whitfield, Parson Greenwood."- 
 
 " LONDON, July 30, 1785. 
 
 " We, whose names are under written, but who were not 
 present at the last Bristol Conference, do declare our appro- 
 bation of the substance and design of the deed which Mr. 
 Wesley has lately executed and enrolled for the purpose of 
 giving a legal specification of the phrase, ' The Conference of 
 the People call-d Methodists.' " 
 
 Then follow the names of thirty preachers. 1 
 After the deed had been enrolled, some of the 
 preachers claimed that Mr. Wesley had, by the en- 
 rollment and execution of the Deed of Declaration, 
 
 i Minutes 1785, Vol. I, pp. J81, 182; Peirce's Wesleyau Polity, 3d Ed , 
 p. 31. 
 
WESLEY'S DEED OF DECLARATION. 79 
 
 given up the power he previously possessed over the 
 societies; but Mr. Wesley soon set the matter at rest 
 by making the following statement : 
 
 "No power which I ever enjoyed is given up by 
 the Declaration Deed. No such thing could have 
 been supposed, had it not been for that improper and 
 ambiguous word ' life-estate/ This also has given 
 the grand occasion of offense to them that sought 
 occasion." 1 
 
 The deed did not take from Mr. "Wesley the power 
 he had exercised, but when he died that power 
 passed to the Conference. 
 
 About seven years after the execution of the 
 deed, John Wesley, on the 2d of March, 1791, at 
 the age of almost eighty-eight years, passed from 
 a life of toil, suffering, and almost unparalleled suc- 
 cess, to the sphere of eternal reward, leaving behind 
 him in vigorous action a religious and ecclesiastical 
 force which vivified and transformed other Churches 
 when he was alive, and since his death has penetrated 
 to the ends of the earth, performing a similar work 
 as well as building up great Church organizations. 
 To have had the leadership of this phenomenal 
 organizer and marvelous executive was an incal- 
 culable advantage, and the Conference which took 
 the control after Mr. Wesley's death showed that 
 its members had profited by the training received 
 under him. 
 
 The first meeting of that Conference after Wesley's 
 decease was a memorable one in many respects. One 
 
 i Minutes 1785, Vol. I, p. 181 ; Peirce's Wesleyan Polity, 3d. Ed., p. 30. 
 
80 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 of the special incidents was the reading of the letter 
 Mr. Wesley had left in the care of Mr. Joseph Brad- 
 ford. As might have been anticipated, its paternal 
 tenderness produced a profound impression; and after 
 hearing it, the Conference passed a series of resolu- 
 tions in one of which it was declared : 
 
 "That all the preachers who are in full connec- 
 tion with them shall enjoy every privilege that the 
 members of the Conference enjoy, agreeably to the 
 above written letter of our venerable deceased father 
 in the gospel." ] 
 
 So the legal hundred did not domineer over the 
 other preachers, but, at the very first Conference held 
 under the deed, found a way for the recognition of all 
 the ministers in full connection, even if they were not 
 of the favored hundred; and in later years, though the 
 legal hundred is technically the legal Conference, yet 
 practically the ministers outside the hundred have 
 been granted a voice and a vote, and, to all intents 
 and purposes, constitute the Conference; but the 
 details of the arrangement do not fall within our 
 province. 2 
 
 To show how comprehensive had been the train- 
 ing of the preachers under Wesley, as shown in the es- 
 tablished usages and the Large Minutes, we need but 
 refer to the fact that at this first Conference after the 
 death of Wesley, when the formal question was asked, 
 " Is it necessary to enter into any engagements in re- 
 
 1 Minutes 1791, Vol. I, p. 242; Peirce's Wesley an Polity, 3d. Ed., p. 32. 
 
 2 See the Ecclesiastical Principles and Polity of the Wesleyan 
 Methodists, by William Peirce, revised by Frederick J. Jobson, D. D., 
 3d Ed., published at the Wesleyan Conference Office, London, England. 
 
WESLEY'S DEED OF DECLARATION. 81 
 
 spcct to our future plan of economy?" the answer re- 
 corded was, "We engage to follow strictly the plan 
 which Mr. Wesley left us at his death." 1 
 
 Thus, through questions concerning property and 
 questions relating to the continuance of the Meth- 
 odist organization, involving both preachers and 
 people, the Deed of Declaration was made. By it 
 Wesley perpetuated the Methodist organization in 
 Great Britain, preserved title to the chapel property, 
 and made the Conference a legally incorporated insti- 
 tution, which would be the governing body, possess- 
 ing legislative, judicial, and executive functions. 
 
 When Wesley died the deed came into full force. 
 With the active deed, the legal Conference com- 
 menced to live, and Conference government in 
 British Methodism began. No longer should one 
 man rule, no matter how good or great he might 
 be; but the body of the preachers would control. 
 Mr. Wesley's departure was the end of personal gov- 
 ernment, and the incoming of Conference government 
 for British Methodism. 
 
 i Minutes, 1791, Vol. J, p. 254; Peirce's Wcsleyan Polity, 3d Ed., 
 p. 448. 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE EARLY AMERICAN CONFERENCES DOWN TO 1777. 
 
 THE last chapter brought us to the year 1791, 
 when the Rev. John Wesley died, and the Brit- 
 ish Methodist Conference was established as a gov- 
 erning power. 
 
 Now we turn our thoughts back about twenty- 
 five years, and look across the Atlantic to America. 
 
 Whitefield, the great Calvin istic Methodist, sailed 
 from England for America the day before John Wesley 
 landed in England on his return from Georgia, in 1738. 1 
 This was Whitefield's first voyage to the New World ; 
 but it was followed by many other visits, which 
 caused him to cross the ocean thirteen times. When 
 in America, he itinerated through the country along 
 the Atlantic sea-board; not attempting to organize a 
 new denomination, but reviving existing Churches, 
 and awakening the people generally. 
 
 Organized Wesleyan Methodism was not intro- 
 duced into America until about twenty-five years 
 after the organization of the first society in England. 
 The generally accepted date is 1766, though some 
 authorities would place it a little earlier. 
 
 It was introduced somewhat irregularly; that is 
 to say, it did not begin through any set purpose of 
 
 i Luke Tyerraan, Life of John Wesley, Vol. I, p. 171. 
 82 
 
AMERICAN CONFERENCES TO 1777. 83 
 
 propagation under, any official authority, or by regu- 
 larly appointed missionaries. 
 
 As to what person introduced Wesley an Method- 
 ism into America, there has been a difference of 
 opinion. Some have given the honor to Philip 
 Embury, acting under the influence of Mrs. Barbara 
 Heck; while others would give the honor to Robert 
 Strawb ridge. 
 
 Embury came from a colony of Germans, who, 
 fleeing from the Palatinate on account of religious 
 persecution, had settled in Ireland. This Irish Pala- 
 tine had been a licensed local preacher in Ireland, 
 and began to preach in America in the autumn 
 of 1766. 1 Robert Strawbridge also was an Irish local 
 preacher, and probably came to the Colonies about 
 the same time as Embury; but Mr. Embury began 
 his work as a preacher in New York City, while Mr. 
 Strawbridge began his work in Maryland. 
 
 The first chapel in New York was built in 1768, 
 on John Street; and this was called Wesley Chapel, 
 or, according to Jesse Lee, " Wesley's Chapel." 2 
 
 Strawbridge introduced Methodism into Maryland, 
 where he settled on Sams Creek, in Frederick County, 
 and immediately opened his own house as a preaching- 
 place. 3 
 
 J A. Stevens, History of the Methodist Episcopal Church, Vol. I, 
 p. 54; John Atkinson, Centennial History of American. Method- 
 ism, p. 9. 
 
 2 Jesse Lee, A Short History of the Methodists in the United States 
 of America, Baltimore, 1810, p. 25. 
 
 a Lee's History of Methodists, p. 25; Stevens's History of the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church, Vol. I, p. 73; Atkinson, Centennial 
 History of Methodism, p. 9; Methodist Quarterly Review, 1856, p. 436; 
 Lednum's Rise.of Methodism in America, p. 16. 
 
84 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 George M. Roberts, M. D., a distinguished local 
 preacher of Baltimore, who had investigated the case 
 with great care, maintained that Strawbridge began to 
 preach in his own house as early as 1760, and that 
 he had a second preaching-place in 1762. 1 
 
 The Rev. William Hamilton, of Baltimore, in his 
 article on "Early Methodism in Maryland/' published 
 in the Methodist Quarterly Revieiv of 1856, states that 
 under Mr. Strawbridge " a society consisting of 
 twelve or fifteen persons was formed as early as 1763 
 or 1764, and soon after a place of worship was 
 erected called the ' Log Meeting-house/ about a 
 mile from the residence of Mr. Strawbridge/' 2 The 
 Rev. William Fort is authority for the statement that 
 a as early as 1762 or 1763, Strawbridge was not only 
 preaching, but baptizing, in Frederick County," and 
 that " tradition says that Strawbridge was ordained 
 by a German minister, in all probability by Mr. 
 Benedict Swoope, who then resided in that region. " : 
 
 Bishop Asbury, in his journal, under date of 
 April 30, 1801, says: " We arrived to dine at Alex- 
 ander Warfield's, on Sams Creek, and pushed on 
 to Henry Willis's, on Pipe Creek, where it had been 
 our intention to open Conference. . . . This set- 
 tlement of Pipe Creek is the richest in the State. 
 Here Mr. Strawbridge formed the first society in 
 
 iRoberts's Letters in Christian Advocate and Journal, New York, 
 1858; J. Lednum, Rise of Methodism in America, Philadelphia, 
 1859, p. 15. 
 
 2 Methodist Quarterly Review, 1856, p. 436. 
 
 3 Fort's article iu Christian Advocate and Journal, New York, 
 July 10, 1844. 
 
AMERICAN CONFERENCES TO 1777. 85 
 
 Maryland and America;" and, showing how much 
 importance he attached to the declaration, Asbury 
 italicizes the words " and America." 1 
 
 This, however, is not the place to settle this dis- 
 puted point as to the priority of the work of Embury 
 or Strawbridge. 2 
 
 We refer to Strawbridge particularly because of 
 his great influence in the early days, and especially 
 because of his historic importance in connection with 
 the early Conferences. 
 
 Captain Webb, of the British Army, who de- 
 lighted in his -Greek Testament, was another local 
 preacher, who for years rendered incalculable service 
 to American Methodism in its initial period. These 
 three local preachers, Embury, Strawbridge, and 
 Webb, laid the foundations of Wesley an Methodism 
 in the new country. Under them the work grew, 
 and soon there were regularly organized societies in 
 New York, Philadelphia, and Maryland, and requests 
 were sent to Mr. Wesley for regularly appointed 
 preachers. 
 
 In 1769, the very year Wesley first introduced 
 
 1 Asbury 's Journal. Vol. Ill, p. 27. 
 
 2 For a fuller discussion of this subject, pro and con, see Rev. "Wm. 
 Fort's communication in the Christian Advocate and Journal, 1811 ; 
 Hamilton's Early Methodism in Maryland, Methodist Quarterly Re- 
 view, New York, July, 1856, pp. 431-448 ; J. B. Wakeley, Lost Chapters 
 from Early History of American Methodism, New York, 1858. pp. 
 156-189; Roberts, Letters in Christian Advocate and Journal, New 
 York, 1858; John Lednum, Rise of Methodism in America, Philadel- 
 phia, 1859, pp. 15-23; Abel Stevens, History of the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church, New York, 1865, pp. 47-80 ; John Atkinson, Centennial History 
 of American Methodism, New York, 18X4. pp. 9-18. WakeU-y ;md Ste- 
 vens grant priority lo Embury. Dr. Atliiusou Icaus ill thut direction 
 but the others favor Sirawbridge. 
 
86 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 his plan for the perpetuity of the British Conference, 
 his thoughts turned toward America, as though anx- 
 ious to give permanence to Methodism on both sides 
 of the ocean. 
 
 At this Conference Richard Boardman and Joseph 
 Pilmoor were appointed to go to America, and these 
 were the first regularly appointed Methodist preach- 
 ers in America. Pilmoor had been educated at Wes- 
 ley's Kingswood School, 1 and had been a regular 
 preacher four years. As Mr. Boardman had been an 
 itinerant preacher six years, he ranked as the senior. 
 
 At the very time they were crossing the Atlantic, 
 Whitefield was making his final voyage to America, 2 
 and in May of the next year, Whitefield, journeying 
 northward, passed through Philadelphia, and, saluting 
 Wesley's missionaries, expressed his satisfaction at 
 finding them in this country. 3 Then he went North, 
 and died, on the 30th of September, at Newburyport, 
 Massachusetts. About this time the preachers received 
 re-enforcements in the persons of Robert Williams and 
 John King, both of whom came from England. 
 Williams was a local preacher, and had permission 
 from Wesley to labor under the missionaries he had 
 sent, 4 but John King was without a license. This, 
 however, did not deter him from preaching, and in a 
 short time he was regularly licensed. Both proved to 
 be exceedingly useful, and Robert Williams has the 
 
 1 Stevens, Hist, of Methodist Episcopal Church, Vol. I, p. 98. 
 * A. Stevens, Hist, of M. E. Ch., Vol. I, p. 101. 
 Jesse Lee, Short History of the Methodists, 1810, p. 30. 
 Lee's History of Methodists, pp. 26, 27. 
 
AMERICAN CONFERENCES TO 1777. 87 
 
 peculiar distinction of being the first Methodist 
 preacher in America, to marry, to locate, and to die. 1 
 
 This year, 1770, "America" appeared for the 
 first time, in Wesley's list of appointments, and had 
 in connection with it four names : Joseph Pilmoor, 
 Richard Boardman, Robert Williams, and John King. 2 
 
 The work grew rapidly, and soon the demand for 
 service was greater than the ability of the mission- 
 aries to respond. So, in the spring of 1770, Pilmoor 
 wrote a letter to Wesley and his Conference in 
 England, urging other ministers to come to the help 
 of those in the Colonies. Among other things, he 
 states that Mr. Boardman and himself "are chiefly 
 confined to the cities, and therefore can not, at pres- 
 ent, go much into the country, as we have more work 
 upon our hands than we are able to perform. There 
 is work enough for two preachers in each place, and if 
 two of our brethren would come over, I believe it 
 would be attended with great blessing." 3 
 
 We are not surprised, therefore, to find Mr. Wes- 
 ley, in 1771, sending two other missionaries; namely, 
 Francis Asbury and Richard Wright. Wright had 
 been an itinerant preacher only one year, and so was 
 outranked by Asbury, who had been a regular 
 preacher four years, he having entered the itinerant 
 ranks in 1766, the very year Embury began to preach 
 in New York. 
 
 Boardman and Pilmoor having thus been aided, 
 
 1 Leroy M. Lee's Life of Jesse Lee, p. 55. 
 
 2 A. Stevens, Hist, of Methodist Episcopal Church, Vol. I, p. 110. 
 Arminian Magazine, 1784, p. 2iJ3. 
 
88 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 we find them making more extensive tours. In 
 April, 1772, it was decided that Mr. Pilmoor should 
 travel south, and Mr. Boardman should visit the 
 North. 1 Asbury, in his journal, under the date of 
 April 2, 1772, refers to this. He says: "I came to 
 Philadelphia, and finding Brother B. [Boardman] and 
 Brother W. [Wright] there, was much comforted. 
 Brother B. 7 s [Boardman's] plan was that he should go 
 to Boston ; Brother P. [Pilmoor] to Virginia; Brother 
 W. [Wright] to York [New York] ; and that, I 
 should stay three months in Philadelphia. With this 
 I am well pleased." 2 
 
 That year " Mr. Pilmoor traveled and preached 
 through Maryland to Norfolk, in Virginia; and left 
 Norfolk in the beginning of 1773, and traveled through 
 the lower parts of Virginia and North Carolina, to 
 Charleston, in South Carolina; and from thence to 
 Savannah, in Georgia ; and then to the Orphan House, 
 which was begun by Mr. Whitefield, in March, 1740; 
 after which he returned again to the North, some time 
 in the following spriug. Mr. Boardman went as far 
 to the north as Boston, and then returned to New 
 York." 3 Dr. Bangs states not only that Mr. Board- 
 man preached in Boston, but also that he " formed a 
 small society" in that place. 4 In the autumn of 1772 
 an administrative change of considerable moment 
 was made. Asbury, in his Journal for October 10th, 
 
 1 Lee's History of the Methodists, p. 39. 
 
 2 Asbury's Journal, Vol. I, p. 13. 
 
 8 Jesse Lee, History of Methodists, pp. 39, 40. 
 
 4 Nathan Bangs, I). D., History of Methodist Episcopal Church, 1857, 
 Vol. I, p. 73. 
 
AMERICAN CONFERENCES TO 1777. 89 
 
 of this year, says: "I received a letter from Mr. 
 Wesley, in which he required a strict attention to 
 discipline, and appointed me to act as assistant. He 
 also enjoined that Mr. W. [Williams] might not print 
 any more books without his consent." 1 
 
 Bangs, referring to this, uses the title " general 
 assistant," 2 but that title does not appear to have been 
 used until a later date. Asbury merely says he was 
 appointed " to act as assistant." 
 
 As already observed, in England, so in America, 
 at this time there were grades among the preachers. 
 Some were called assistants, and some were called 
 helpers. As Lee explains : " The helper was the young 
 preacher in each circuit where there were generally 
 two preachers in a circuit. The assistant was the 
 oldest preacher in the circuit, who had the charge of 
 the young preacher and of the business of the 
 circuit." 3 
 
 On the 19th of the same month, Asbury says that 
 at Princeton he " met Mr. B. [Boardman], and we 
 both agreed in judgment about the affairs of the so- 
 ciety." 4 Dr. Stevens, alluding to this, speaks of 
 Boardmau as having been " reduced from an ' assist- 
 ant ' to a ' helper/" 5 This, however, depends upon 
 the status of the work at that time. Subsequently 
 there were many " assistants " and the appointment of 
 a new one did not necessarily mean the deposition of 
 
 1 Asbury's Journal, New York, 1821, Vol. I, p. 29. 
 
 2 Bangs, History of Methodist Episcopal Church, 1857, Vol. I, p. 74. 
 a Jesse Lee, Hist, of Methodists, Bait., 1810, p. 41. 
 
 * Asbury's Journal, New York, 1821, Vol. 1, p. 30. 
 Stevens, History of Methodist Episcopal Church, 1865, Vol. I, p. 131. 
 7 
 
90 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 an old one. At that very time, in England, there 
 was a large number of "assistants." If America at 
 that time had a number of circuits, then there might 
 have been an " assistant " for each circuit. Mr. 
 Wesley, however, seems to have considered all 
 America as one circuit, and it would appear that Mr. 
 Asbury's work was of a general character. 
 
 If Mr. Boardman was reduced, one would nat- 
 urally ask, Why ? for he was an older man and had 
 been longer in the ministry than Mr. Asbury. Mr. 
 Wesley thought well of him ; for after his decease he 
 referred to him as l( a pious, good-natured, sensible 
 man, greatly beloved of all that knew him," 1 and 
 proposed for his tombstone an epitaph containing 
 these lines: 
 
 " With zeal for God, with love of souls inspired, 
 Nor awed by dangers nor by labors tired, 
 Boardman in distant worlds proclaims the word 
 To multitudes, and turns them to his Lord." 3 
 
 Asbury was a very positive character, and was 
 not long in asserting himself after he arrived in 
 America. He landed in Philadelphia on the 27th 
 day of October, 177 1. 3 
 
 On the 12th of November he set out for New 
 York, where he found Richard Boardman " in peace, 
 but weak in body." 4 On the 20th of the same 
 month, after he had been in New York only about 
 eight days and in the country only about twenty-four 
 
 i Wesley's Works, Araer. Ed., New York, 1853, Vol. VII, p. 483. 
 
 s Id., p. 156. 
 
 Asbury 's Journal, Vol. I, p. 4. < Id., p. 5. 
 
AMERICAN CONFERENCES TO 1777. 91 
 
 days, he makes this note in his journal: "Tuesday, 
 20th, I remain in York [New York], though unsatis- 
 fied with our being both in town together. I have 
 not yet the thing which I seek a circulation of 
 preachers to avoid partiality and popularity. How- 
 ever, I am fixed to the Methodist plan, and do what I 
 do faithfully as to God. I expect trouble is at hand. 
 This I expected when I left England, and I am 
 willing to suffer yea, to die sooner than betray 
 so good a cause by any means. It will be a hard 
 matter to stand against all opposition as an iron 
 pillar strong, and steadfast as a wall of brass; 
 but, through Christ strengthening me, I can do 
 all things." l 
 
 What does all this mean ? One might infer that 
 he was being strongly antagonized. Surely it could 
 not be by Mr. Board man, for only seven days before 
 he wrote in his journal : " My friend B. [Boardman] 
 is a kind, loving, worthy man, truly amiable and en- 
 tertaining, and of a child-like temper." 
 
 On the 22d he writes : " At present I am dissatis- 
 fied. I judge we are to be shut up in the cities this 
 winter. My brethren seem unwilling to leave the 
 cities, but I think I shall show them the way. I am 
 in trouble, and more trouble is at hand, for I am de- 
 termined to make -a stand against all partiality. I 
 have nothing to seek but the glory of God, nothing 
 to fear but his displeasure. I am come over with an 
 upright intention, and through the grace of God J 
 will make it appear." 2 
 
 i Asbury's Journal, 1821, Vol. I, p. 6. 2 Ibid. 
 
92 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 He talks very much more like a chief than a 
 helper. Mr. Board man was the " assistant " who 
 was empowered to direct, and Mr. Asbury was the 
 " helper," who should carry out the directions, ac- 
 cording to " the Methodist plan" to which he alludes. 
 But Mr. Asbury appears to see that things are not 
 properly managed, and he puts upon himself the 
 burden of finding a remedy. 
 
 As to staying in the cities, Mr. Pilmoor had 
 mentioned that very matter in his letter to Mr. 
 Wesley, and indicated that they needed more men in 
 order to enable them to travel as freely as they de- 
 sired; and we find, in harmony with this, that not 
 long after the arrival of Asbury and Wright, both 
 Mr. Boardman and Mr. Pilmoor start on and prose- 
 cute long journeys to the North and the South. 
 
 Now Mr. Asbury is actually in the position of 
 " assistant," and has an opportunity to see what he 
 can do as the authorized manager of the work and 
 superintendent of the preachers. Of executive abil- 
 ity he soon proved that he possessed an abundance; 
 and with it was joined great activity and power of 
 long sustained exertion. 
 
 He quickly flew from point to point, preaching 
 frequently, holding quarterly meetings, and endeavor- 
 ing to enforce discipline. 
 
 At that time there were no Annual Conferences, 
 and "the preachers regulated their business at the 
 different quarterly meetings," l which were held here 
 
 i Jesse Lee, History of Methodists, 1810, p. 41. 
 
AMERICAN CONFERENCES TO 1777. 93 
 
 and there to accommodate the preachers and societies 
 within easy reach. 
 
 The first quarterly meeting of which we have any 
 record was held on" the western shore of Maryland. 
 Mr. Asbury, in his journal for Tuesday, December 
 23, 1772, says he " set off for J. P.'s [J. Presbury's] 
 to attend our quarterly meeting. Many people at- 
 tended, and several friends came many miles. I 
 preached from Acts xx, 28 : ' Take heed therefore 
 unto yourselves/ etc. " Then he remarks : 
 
 " We afterwards proceeded to our temporal business, and 
 considered the following propositions: 
 
 "1. What are our collections? We found them sufficient 
 to defray our expenses. 
 
 "2. How are the preachers stationed? Brother S. [Straw- 
 bridge] and Brother O. [Owen], in Frederick County [Western 
 Shore of Maryland] ; Brother K. [King] , Brother W. [Web- 
 ster] , and T. R. [Isaac Rollins] , on the other side of the bay 
 [Eastern Shore] ; and myself in Baltimore. 
 
 " 3. Shall we be strict in our society meetings, and not ad- 
 mit strangers ? Agreed. 
 
 "4. Shall we drop preaching in the day-time through the 
 week ? Not agreed to. 
 
 " 5. Will the people be contented without our administer- 
 ing the sacrament ? J. K. [John King] was neuter ; Brother 
 S. [Strawbridge] pleaded much for the ordinances, and so did 
 the people, who appeared to be much biased by him. I told 
 them I would not agree to it at that time, and insisted on our 
 abiding by our rules. But Mr. B. [Boardman] had given them 
 their way at the quarterly meeting held here before, and I was 
 obliged to connive at some things for the sake of peace. 
 
 " 6. Shall we make collections weekly, to pay the preachers' 
 board and expenses ? This was not agreed to. 
 
 " We then inquired into the moral character of the preach- 
 ers and exhorters. Only one exhorter was found any way 
 doubtful, and we have great hopes of him. Brother S. [Straw- 
 
-94 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 bridge] received 8 quarterage; Brother K. [King] and my- 
 self, 6 each. 
 
 "Great love subsisted among us in this meeting, and we 
 parted in peace." l 
 
 Here we have the question of the administration 
 of the sacraments by the Methodist preachers of that 
 day. It is evident that Strawbridge had been offici- 
 ating in this matter, and that the Methodist people of 
 that section wanted the sacraments from their own 
 preachers. Mr. Asbury " would not agree to it at 
 that time/' and criticises Mr. Boardman because he 
 "had given them their way." Then this, strict disci- 
 plinarian surprises us by acknowledging that he 
 " was obliged to connive at some things for the sake 
 of peace." It was doubtless a concession to the great 
 local influence of Mr. Strawbridge. 
 
 It will also be observed that the appointments 
 for the preachers were announced at the quarterly 
 meetings. 
 
 Mr. Asbury appears to have made it a point to 
 visit the different quarterly meetings, very much as 
 the presiding elders of more modern times. 
 
 The next quarterly meeting of which Mr. Asbury 
 gives an account was held at the same place on the 
 30th of March, 1773. His entry in his journal is as 
 follows : 
 
 "Tuesday, 30th. Our quarterly meeting began. After I 
 had preached, we proceeded to business; and in our little 
 conference the following queries were propounded, viz: 
 
 "1. Are there no disorderly persons in our classes? It 
 was thought not. 
 
 i Asbury's Journal, 1821, Vol. I, pp. 37 and. 38. 
 
AMERICAN CONFERENCES TO 1777. 95 
 
 " 2. Does not dram-drinking too much prevail among our 
 people ? 
 
 " 3. Do none contract debts without due care to pay them ? 
 We found that this evil is much avoided among our people. 
 
 " 4. Are the band-meetings kept up ? 
 
 "5. Is there nothing immoral in any of our preachers? 
 
 " 6. What preachers travel now, and where are they 
 stationed ? 
 
 " It was then urged that none must break our rules, under 
 the penalty of being excluded from our connection. 
 
 "All was settled in the most amicable manner. 
 
 " Mr. S. [Strawbridge] preached a good and useful sermon 
 from Joel ii, 17 ; ' Let the priests, the ministers of the Lord, 
 weep between the porch and the altar/ etc. 
 
 " Many people were present at our love-feast, among whom 
 were many strangers; but all were deeply serious, and the 
 power of God was present indeed. Brother O. [Owen] 
 preached a very alarming sermon, and Brother S. [Strawbridge] 
 gave a moving exhortation. The whole ended in great peace, 
 and we all went, in the strength of the Lord, to our several 
 appointments." l 
 
 These two specimens give a fair idea of the style 
 of quarterly meetings in that period. There were 
 the sermons and the love-feast, and the old fashion of 
 one preacher following the sermon of another with 
 an exhortation. It will be noticed that there was a 
 very decided variation in the questions, showing that 
 there was no settled form. In the report of the sec- 
 ond meeting the answers to some of the questions are 
 not given, and there is no mention of the sacramental 
 question. Possibly the latter was omitted " for the 
 sake of peace." 
 
 The year 1773 marks an epoch in both EngJish 
 and American Methodism. It will be remembered 
 
 i Asbury' Journal, 1821, Vol. I, p. 46. 
 
96 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 that in the English Conference of this year, Wesley 
 rei introduced the plan of 1769 for continuing and 
 empowering that Conference, so as to perpetuate 
 British Methodism. The same year he sent to 
 America two preachers, one of whom Lad much to 
 do in molding the Methodist organism in this 
 country. At the English Conference, held in 
 August, 1772, Captain Webb appeared, and earnestly 
 appealed for preachers to go to America. Prior to 
 this, the old soldier urged the appointment of Chris- 
 topher Hopper, one of Wesley's ablest and most re- 
 liable men, and the cultured Joseph Benson, whom 
 Dr. Adam Clarke called " a sound scholar, a powerful 
 and able preacher, and a profound theologian." 
 Charles Wesley, however, opposed this, and was so 
 surprised at the zealous captain's picture of the pos- 
 sibilities in the new continent that he pronounced him 
 fanatical. 1 His appeal to the Conference so stirred 
 the preachers, that Thomas Rankin and George Shad- 
 ford offered themselves to go the following spring. 2 
 
 George Shadford had been itinerant preacher five 
 years. Thomas Rankin had been a regular preacher 
 eleven years. Wesley reposed great confidence in 
 Rankin, even taking him as his traveling companion. 
 Rankin was born in Scotland, in 1738, so that when 
 he came as a preacher to America he was about 
 thirty-five years of age. He had, in his younger 
 days, prepared to enter the College at Edinburgh/* 
 
 1 A. Stevens, History of Methodist Episcopal Church, Vol. I, p. 142. 
 
 2 Methodist Magazine, London, 181fi, p. 645. 
 McClintock and Strong's Encyclopaedia. 
 
AMERICAN CONFERENCES TO 1777. 97 
 
 so that he had the foundations of a good education. 
 Circumstances, however, diverted him from his orig- 
 inal purpose, and he sailed for America to engage in 
 a commercial enterprise; but he soon returned to his 
 native land. He became " one of the commanding 
 men of the Wesleyan Ministry," and "an experienced 
 disciplinarian." l 
 
 One writing, in 1770, of a visit of Wesley to 
 Leeds, interjects this mention : " Mr. Rankin, who 
 travels with him, is a blessed man, and seems to fear 
 no one's face." 2 
 
 This was the man whom Wesley appointed his 
 general assistant for America, giving him charge of 
 all the preachers and societies in the Colonies. 
 Stevens suggests that " Wesley judged him competent 
 to manage the difficulties which had arisen under the 
 administration of Asbury, as represented in the cor- 
 respondence of the latter," 3 and Bangs says : " It 
 seems that, notwithstanding the vigilance of Mr. 
 Asbury in correcting those abuses which had arisen 
 from the laxity with which discipline had been ad- 
 ministered, many disorders still existed for which an 
 adequate remedy had not been provided. These 
 things had been communicated to Mr. Wesley, and 
 he therefore clothed Mr. Rankin with powers superior 
 to any which had been vested in his predecessors in 
 office." 4 Samuel Drew, in his Life of Dr. Coke, 
 
 1 A. Stevens, History Methodist Episcopal Church, Vol. I, p, 142. 
 
 * L. Tyerman, Life of John Wesley, Vol. Ill, p. 69. 
 
 8 A. Stevens, History of Methodist Episcopal Church, Vol. I, p. 142. 
 
 * N. Bangs, History of Methodist Episcopal Church, 1857, Vol. I. p. 80. 
 
98 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 probably suggests the cause of the lack of discipline, 
 when he says : 
 
 " Mr. Asbury, on his arrival, soon perceived that 
 the work which had been so happily begun, was con- 
 fined chiefly to the larger towns; but that, under proper 
 regulations, it was susceptible of a much greater 
 extension, if carried into the villages and secluded 
 plantations that were scattered throughout the country. 
 To these departments he therefore devoted his time 
 and talents ; and, in the blessing which attended his 
 ministry and the great success which he found in the 
 formation of societies, he thought himself amply re- 
 warded for all the inconveniences with which his 
 solitary excursions were attended. But while he was 
 thus engaged in visiting the plantations and villages, an 
 undue eagerness to extend the work in the towns had 
 unhappily led to a comparative neglect of discipline. 
 Some apprehensions of this seem to have been antici- 
 pated in England." 1 
 
 In other words, Asbury had undertaken an ex- 
 pansion which prevented his strengthening the cen- 
 ters. Wesley intrenched himself in the cities and 
 towns, giving them special care; and from these 
 strong centers extended into the country. Even in 
 Asbury's day the center of influence was the city ; 
 much more is it to-day, and the Church or cause that 
 would be potent must be strong in the cities. 
 
 Thomas Rankin, the reliable, was sent by Wesley 
 to set in order the affairs of American Methodism, 
 
 1 Samuel Drew, Life of Rev. Thomas Coke, LL. D., 1817, Amer. Ed., 
 New York, 1847, p. 61. 
 
AMERICAN CONFERENCES TO 1777. 99 
 
 and to carry forward its work ; and, as Jesse Lee ob- 
 serves, " From that time, Mr. Rankin had the super- 
 intendency of the Methodist connection in America, 
 and was styled the general assistant." l 
 
 Mr. Raukin was the first to bear this title. Before 
 his coming, no preacher in America had any higher 
 title than that of assistant. General assistant im- 
 plied something more. The assistant had charge of 
 the circuit and the preachers who were associated 
 with him on the circuit, and he was limited to his 
 circuit ; but the title of general assistant implied that 
 there were a number of circuits with their assist- 
 ants, and that the person bearing this title had 
 general charge of the entire work, including the 
 assistants. 
 
 This new appointment reveals the fact that Wes- 
 ley's control in America was regarded as supreme. 
 He appointed and recalled preachers at pleasure, and, 
 at his pleasure, elevated one and deposed another. 
 So Asbury, from being for a brief period the chief 
 over others in America, becomes, by Wesley's act, a 
 subordinate to the recently appointed general as- 
 sistant. 
 
 In the beginning of June, 1773, Thomas Rank in 
 and George Shadford landed at Philadelphia; and 
 " immediately after Mr. Rankin's arrival in Philadel- 
 phia, he called the traveling preachers together." 2 
 This was the call for the first Conference of Ameri- 
 can Methodist preachers, and the Conference met in 
 Philadelphia. 
 
 i Jesse Lee, History of Methodists, 1810, p. 45. *Ibid. 
 
100 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 The printed Minutes say this Conference was held 
 in June, 1773 ; but Asbury says the Conference began 
 on Wednesday, the 14th of July. The precise entry 
 is : " Wednesday 14. Our General Conference be- 
 gan." l This note is peculiar also from the fact that 
 here for the first time we find the phrase "General 
 Conference," Asbury apparently using it in contra- 
 distinction to the local quarterly meetings or Quar- 
 terly Conferences which had heretofore been held 
 in America. 
 
 Rankin records that "there were present seven 
 preachers, besides Boardman and Pilmoor, who were 
 to return to England." Asbury did not arrive until 
 the second day, and Dr. Stevens counts him as the 
 tenth member present. 2 Mr. Asbury says: "Came 
 safe to the city on Thursday, but did not find such 
 perfect harmony as I could wish for." 3 What the 
 discord was he does not mention, but leaves us to 
 infer or imagine. 
 
 The Minutes of that first Yearly Conference are 
 very brief. The heading in the printed copy is as 
 follows : 
 
 " Minutes of Some Conversations between the Preachers 
 in Connection with the Reverend Mr. John Wesley. Phila- 
 delphia, June, 1773." 
 
 Then follows the body of the Minutes., in the 
 form of question and answer. 
 
 1 Asbury's Journal, 1821, Vol. I, p. 55. For fuller statement see A. 
 Stevens, History of Methodist Episcopal Church, 1865, Vol. I, p. 161. 
 
 2 A. Stevens, History of Methodist Episcopal Church, Vol. I, p. 160. 
 Asbury's Journal, 1821, Vol. I, p. 55. 
 
AMERICAN CONFERENCES TO J f 777- i01 
 
 " The following queries were proposed to every preacher : 
 
 " 1. Ought not the authority of Mr. Wesley and that Con- 
 ference to extend to the preachers and people in America, as 
 well as in Great Britain and Ireland ? 
 
 "An*. Yes. 
 
 "2. Ought not the doctrine and discipline of the Method- 
 ists, as contained in the Minutes, to be the sole rule of our con- 
 duct, who labor in the connection with Mr. Wesley, in America? 
 
 "Aru. Yes. 
 
 " 3. If so, does it not follow, that if any preachers deviate 
 from the Minutes, we can have no fellowship with them till 
 they change their conduct? 
 
 "Am. Yes. 
 
 " The following rules were agreed to by all the preachers 
 present: 
 
 " 1. Every preacher who acts in connection with Mr. 
 Wesley and the brethren who labor in America, is strictly to 
 avoid administering the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's 
 Supper. 
 
 " 2. All the people among whom we labor to be earnestly 
 exhorted to attend the Church, and to receive the ordinances 
 there; but in a particular manner, to press the people in 
 Maryland and Virginia to the observance of this minute. 
 
 "3. No person or persons to be admitted into our love- 
 feasts oftener than twice or thrice, unless they become mem- 
 bers ; and none to be admitted to the society meetings more 
 than twice. 
 
 " 4. None of the preachers in America to reprint any of 
 Mr. Wesley's books without his authority (when it can be 
 gotten) and the consent of their brethren. 
 
 "5. Robert Williams to sell the books he has already 
 printed, but to print no more, unless under the above re- 
 strictions. 
 
 " 6. Every preacher who acts as an assistant, to send 
 an account of the work once in six months to the general 
 assistant. 
 
 " Ques. 1. How are the preachers stationed? 
 
 " Am. 
 
 " New York, Thomas Rankin, 
 
 " Philadelphia,George Shadford, 
 
102 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 " New Jersey, John King, William Walters. 
 
 " Balt'mo e 1 Francis Asbury, Robert Strawbridge, 
 
 /Abraham Whitworth, Joseph Yearbry. 
 " Norfolk, Richard Wright. 
 " Petersburg, Robert Williams. 
 " Ques. 2. What members are there in the society? 
 " Am 
 
 New York 180 I Maryland 500 
 
 Philadelphia 180 | Virginia 100 
 
 New Jersey 200 
 
 | Preachers, 10. Total 1,160 
 
 The Minutes of this Conference were written and 
 were kept in manuscript as was the case with those 
 of succeeding Conferences, and " none of the Annual 
 Minutes were published until the year 1785," after 
 which the Minutes were printed annually. " How- 
 ever, in the year 1795," says Jesse Lee, " we had 
 all the Minutes from 1773 to that time published and 
 bound in one book." 1 
 
 Being the first Annual Conference, the Minutes 
 have a special interest, and that interest will be deep- 
 ened by Asbury's memoranda. He says : 
 
 " The following propositions were agreed to : 
 
 " 1. The old Methodist doctrine and discipline shall be en- 
 forced and maintained amongst all our societies in America. - 
 
 " 2. Any preacher who acts otherwise, can not be retained 
 amongst us as a fellow-laborer in the vineyard. 
 
 " 3. No preacher in our connection shall be permitted to 
 administer the ordinances at this time, except Mr. S. [Straw- 
 bridge], and he under the particular direction of the assistant. 
 
 "4. No person shall be admitted more than once or twice 
 to our love-feasts or society meetings without becoming a 
 member. 
 
 "5. No preacher shall be permitted to print our books 
 
 i Jesse Lee, Hist, of Methodists, 1810, p. 45. 
 
AMERICAN CONFERENCES TO 1777. 103 
 
 without the approbation of Mr. Wes^y and the consent of his 
 brethren. And that E. W. [Robert Williams], shall be allowed 
 to sell what he has, but reprint no more. 
 
 " 6. Every assistant is to send an account of the work of 
 God in his circuit to the general assistant. 
 
 " There were some debates amongst the preachers in this 
 Conference relative to the conduct of some who had mani- 
 fested a desire to abide in the cities and live like gentlemen. 
 Three years out of four have been already spent in the cities. 
 It was also feared that money had been wasted, improper 
 leaders appointed, and many of our rules broken." l 
 
 Jesse Lee, in his summary of the Minutes, also makes 
 some points a little clearer. For example, instead of 
 using in the first paragraph the words " that Confer- 
 ence " as in the printed Minuses, he uses the phrase 
 "the English Conference;" and in the second, instead 
 of using the words, " in the Minutes," he has " in the 
 English Minutes." 2 
 
 All these authorities show that the individual 
 members of the Conference formally agreed to recog- 
 nize the authority of the Rev. John Wesley, so that 
 Mr. Wesley should govern them in America as he did 
 their brethren in Great Britain and Ireland. In 
 other words, it was admitted that his personal govern- 
 ment was supreme among the American Methodists as 
 it was over the preachers and societies on the other 
 side of the ocean. 
 
 Further, they formally recognized the Large Min- 
 utes, which Wesley had collated and printed three 
 years before, as the formulated doctrine and discipline 
 which should govern their teaching and practice, so 
 
 i Asbury's Journal, 1821, pp. 55, 56. 
 
 a Jesse Lee, History of the Methodists, 1810, p. 46. 
 
104 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 that the Large Minutes would be the code to guide 
 them, while Wesley's will, as expressed from time 
 to time, would be the power by which they would be 
 directed. In other words, the Conference did not have 
 inhering in it any legislative, judicial, or executive 
 power, but simply carried out what the Large Minutes 
 set forth or what Wesley declared. 
 
 Again the sacramental question appears, and the 
 preachers consent to Wesley's view that the sac- 
 raments should be received from the Church of 
 England clergy. Asbury, however, tells us that an 
 exception was made in the case of Robert Straw- 
 bridge. This was doubtless a concession to the abil- 
 ity and great influence of this remarkable man, and 
 probably to the demand of the people, which demand 
 arose from the difficulty of obtaining the sacraments 
 from reputable clergymen at convenient times. 
 
 Robert Williams had done great good by printing 
 and circulating selections from Wesley's writings, 1 
 but this was to cease unless permission was granted. 
 There were several reasons for this : First, the works 
 belonged to Wesley ; secondly, there was an idea that 
 a kind of censorship of the press was necessary to 
 prevent error and to avoid bringing discredit upon 
 Methodism ; and, thirdly, it was thought, as Jesse 
 Lee says, that the time had arrived when " it now 
 became necessary for the preachers to be all united in 
 the same cause of printing and selling our books, so 
 that the profits arising therefrom might be divided 
 
 1 Jesse Lee, History of the Methodists, 1810, p. 49, 
 
AMERICAN CONFERENCES TO 1777. 105 
 
 among the preachers, or applied to some charitable 
 purpose." 1 
 
 Finally, every assistant was to report his work to 
 the general assistant, somewhat as the preacher-in- 
 charge to-day is to report the conditions of his cir- 
 cuit or station to the presiding elder of the district. 
 
 These conclusions can hardly be called, in any 
 strict sense, law-making. They were agreements rather 
 than enactments. In view of certain irregularities, 
 these particular points were agreed upon in the com- 
 mon effort to correct irregularities and to meet exist- 
 ing conditions.. Wesley was recognized as the ruler, 
 and the Large English Minutes as the law; and the 
 American Conference had no power to change any- 
 thing in the " Large Minutes." 
 
 The Minutes themselves seem to indicate that the 
 above agreements were extrajudicial, for after them 
 come, " Ques. 1. How are the preachers stationed?" 
 and " Ques. 2. What numbers are there in the soci- 
 ety ?" as though these alone were the regular items. 
 The Conference made no laws and made no appoint- 
 ments. Rankin, Wesley's general assistant and rep- 
 resentative, assigned the preachers to their several 
 localities, where they were to labor. 
 
 It will be observed that Boardman and Pilmoor 
 are not mentioned in these Minutes. They received 
 no appointments, because they were to return to 
 England. Wesley, in his proposed epitaph for Board- 
 man's tomb, indicates that his return was occasioned 
 
 Jesse Lee, History of the Methodists, 1810, p. 49. 
 
106 GOVERNING CONFKRKNCK IN METHODISM. 
 
 by the mutterings of war in the Colonies ; for even 
 at this period there were premonitions of the Revo- 
 lution. 
 
 The Minutes, however, reveal the fact that a 
 native ministry was growing up. In the list of 
 preachers who received appointments we find the 
 name of " William Waiters, of the Western Shore of 
 Maryland," who " began to travel this year, and he 
 was -the first traveling preacher that was raised up 
 among the Methodists in America." 1 Mr. Watters, 
 for some reason, did not go to New Jersey; and 
 Philip Gatch tells us he was called, out by Mr. 
 Rankin to fill the vacancy. 2 Thus, in Watters and 
 Gatch, began a line of native American Methodist 
 preachers. 
 
 The second American Conference met in Phil- 
 adelphia, on the 25th of May, 1774; and from that 
 time for many years, May was the favorite month 
 for holding the Conferences, and especially that 
 which was esteemed the most important. 
 
 The Minutes show that the preliminary questions 
 of the former Conference were not asked at this, and 
 further show, by the form and scope of the questions, 
 that the Conference was settling down to a regular 
 order of business. 
 
 They were as follows : 
 
 " Ques. 1. Who are admitted this year? 
 '" Ques. 2. Who are admitted on trial ? 
 " Ques. 3. Who are assistants this year? 
 
 i Jesse Lee, History of the Methodists, 1810, p. 45. 
 Gatch, in Lediium's Rise of Methodism in America, 1859, pp. 
 112 and 113. 
 
AMERICAN CONFERENCES TO 1777. 107 
 
 " Ques. 4. Are there any objections to any of the preachers? 
 " Ques. 5. How are the preachers stationed this year? 
 " Ques. 6. What numbers are there in society ?" 
 
 Jesse Lee explains the first question by adding 
 the words " i. e., into full connection." l The answer 
 to the fourth question was, " They were examined one 
 by one" a custom which has continued to this day. 
 After the list of appointments comes the note : " All 
 the preachers to change at the end of six months." 
 
 After the answers to the regular interrogatories 
 comes the following statement: 
 
 " This Conference agreed to the following particulars : 
 
 "1. Every preacher who is received into full connection 
 is to have the use and property of his horse, which any of the 
 circuits may furnish him with. 
 
 " 2. Every preacher to be allowed six pounds Pennsylvania 
 currency per quarter and his traveling charges besides. 
 
 " 3. For every assistant to make a general collection at 
 Easter in the circuits where they labor; to be applied to the 
 sinking of debts on the houses and relieving the preachers 
 in want. 
 
 " 4. Wherever Thomas Rankin spends his time he is to be 
 assisted by those circuits." 2 
 
 Now the assistants are named in order, with 
 Thomas Rankin at the head, and next came Francis 
 Asbury. 
 
 The journal of the latter contains a brief but sug- 
 gestive reference to this Conference, as follows: 
 
 " Wednesday 25th. Our Conference began. The 
 overbearing spirit of a certain person had excited my 
 fears. My judgment was stubbornly opposed for 
 
 1 Jesse Lee, History of Methodists, 1810, p. 50. 
 
 2 Minutes of Methodist Conferences, Vol I, 1773 to 1813, pp. 7, 8. 
 
108 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 awhile, and at last submitted to. But it is my duty to 
 bear all things with a meek and patient spirit. Our 
 Conference was attended with great power, and, all 
 things considered, with great harmony. We agreed 
 to send Mr. W. [Wright] to England; and all acqui- 
 esced in the future stations of the preachers. My lot 
 was to go to York [New York]. My body and mind 
 have been much fatigued during the time 'of this Con- 
 ference. And if I were not deeply conscious of the 
 truth and goodness of the cause in which I am en- 
 gaged, I should by no means stay here. Lord I what 
 a world is this! Yea, what a religious world! O, 
 keep my heart pure and my garments unspotted from 
 the world! Our Conference ended on Friday with a 
 comfortable intercession." 1 
 
 From this it appears that Asbury had gone to 
 the Conference with some apprehensions. It also ap- 
 pears that at the Conference his judgment was 
 opposed ; but it is just as evident that he had ex- 
 pressed his judgment with some vigor, and that at 
 last the other side yielded. He does not give the 
 name of the " certain person " who had the 
 " overbearing spirit ;" but it is very plain that the 
 English Asbury and the Scotch Rankin did not 
 harmonize. 
 
 Possibly Asbury felt a little aggrieved at being 
 superseded after he had been assistant such a short 
 time, and yet that may not be considered clear. In 
 his journal of June 3, 1773, shortly after the landing 
 of Rankin he makes this entry : " Thursday, 3d. 
 
 1 Francis Asbury, Journal, 1821. Vol. I, p, 81. 
 
AMERICAN CONFERENCES TO 1777. 109, 
 
 To my great comfort arrived Mr. R. [Rankin], Mr. 
 S. [Shadford], Mr. Y. [Yearbry], and Captain W. 
 [Webb]. Mr. R. [Rankin] preached a good sermon 
 on these words : 'I have set before thee an open door, 
 and no man can shut it.' He will not be admired 
 as a preacher, but as a disciplinarian he will fill his 
 place." l 
 
 He afterward appears to have formed a higher es- 
 timate of Mr. Rankings preaching ability, for on the 
 13th of the same month he refers to him as having 
 " dispensed the word of truth with power," and ob- 
 serves that " it reached the hearts of many, and they 
 appeared to be much quickened." 
 
 Doubtless Rankin was appointed to superintend 
 the work in America because he was "a discipli- 
 narian." Possibly he had the Scotch type of rigid- 
 ness in the discharge of duty, which Asbury and 
 others could not help feeling. Bangs says that Rankin, 
 "in the faithful exercise" of his superior power, u set 
 himself to purifying the societies from corrupt mem- 
 bers and restoring things to order," and " it was 
 soon found that the discharge of this duty, however 
 painful, instead of abridging the influence of minis- 
 terial labor, greatly extended it, and exerted a most 
 salutary effect upon the societies." 2 
 
 One may not say definitely what was the diffi- 
 culty between Asbury and Rankin. Possibly it grew 
 out of the clashing of two strong wills, backed by 
 
 1 Francis Asbnry, Journal, 1821, Vol. I, p. 52. 
 
 N. Bangs, History of Methodist Episcopal Church, 1857, Vol. I. pp. 
 80,81. 
 
110 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 strong convictioDS. Asbury had his views and wishes, 
 and Rankin had his; but Rankin, as general assistant, 
 was supreme, and therefore Asbury was compelled 
 to submit. 
 
 Dr. Strickland states that, in 1774, Asbury, "in 
 consequence of his feeble health," " began to feel some 
 solicitude about his appointment for the ensuing year," 
 and that "he expressed a desire that he might 
 be saved from going into what he called the low 
 country." 1 
 
 On" the 4th of November, 1774, Asbury met 
 Rankin in Philadelphia, when, he says, " I spoke 
 my mind to Mr. R. [Rankin], but we did not agree in 
 judgment. And it appeared to me that to make any 
 attempt to go to Baltimore would be all in vain." 2 
 Two days after that, Mr. Asbury makes this record : 
 " Wrote a letter to Mr. Wesley, which I read to Mr. 
 R. [Rankin], that he might see I intended no guile or 
 secret dealings. It is somewhat grievous that he 
 should prevent my going to Baltimore, after being 
 acquainted with my engagements and the importunities 
 of my friends there." 3 
 
 He evidently took an appeal to Mr. Wesley ; but 
 it was a manly act to apprise Mr. Rankin of the fact, 
 and to let him peruse the contents of the letter. 
 But about it all there is a little touch of human 
 nature. Probably Mr. Rankin also reported to 
 Mr. Wesley. 
 
 Whatever was the real source of the difference 
 
 W. P. Strickland, Life of Francis Asbury, New York, 1858, p. 104. 
 2 F. Asbury, Journal, 1821, p. 102. Ibid. 
 
AMERICAN CONFERENCES TO 1777. Ill 
 
 between these strong men, Wesley, after hearing the 
 case, decided that it would be better for Asbury to 
 return to England. 
 
 In a letter to Mr. Rankin, dated March 1, 1775, 
 Wesley says : " As soon as possible, you must come 
 to a full and clear explanation, both with Brother 
 Asbury (if he is recovered) and with Jemmy Demp- 
 ster. But I advise Brother Asbury to return to 
 England the first opportunity." l To the same letter 
 Mr. Wesley added a message for all the preachers in 
 America, in which are these words: "The conduct of 
 T. Rankin has been suitable to the Methodist plan. 
 I hope all of you tread in his steps. Let your eye 
 be single. Be in peace with each other, and the God 
 of peace will be with you." 2 
 
 On April 21, 1775, Wesley writes Rankin : 
 " Brother Asbury has sent me a few lines, and I 
 thank him for them. But I do not advise him to go 
 to Antigua. Let him come home without delay." 3 
 On the 19th of May, 1775, in a letter to the same 
 person, he says: "I doubt not but Brother Asbury 
 and you will part friends. I shall hope to see him at 
 the Conference. He is quite an upright man. I ap- 
 prehend he will go through his work more cheerfully 
 when he is within a little distance from me." 4 In 
 another letter to Mr. Rankin, written July 28, 1775, 
 Wesley remarks: " I rejoice, too, over honest Francis 
 Asbury, and hope he will no more enter into tempta- 
 tion" 5 an allusion, probably, to the personal dif- 
 
 i Wesley's Works, Amer. Ed., Vol. VII, pp. 7, 8. Id., p. 8. 
 Id., p. 9. < Ibid. * Id., p. 11. 
 
112 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 ferences into which " honest Francis Asbury " had 
 fallen. 
 
 Differences as to questions of policy or manage- 
 ment of affairs may occur among the purest men, 
 and, under some circumstances, the very honesty of a 
 strong nature may bring them about. Whatever the 
 dispute was about, it appears to have been at least 
 partially adjusted; for Mr. Wesley wrote to Rankin 
 on the 13th of August, 1775: "I am not sorry that 
 Brother Asbury stays with you another year. In 
 that time it will be seen what God will do with North 
 America, and you will easily judge whether our 
 preachers are called to remain any longer therein. If 
 they are, God will make their way plain, and give 
 them favor even with the men that delight in war/ 7 1 
 
 One of Mr. Wesley's letters, just quoted, reveals 
 the fact that Asbury really had some thought of going 
 to Antigua. On the 23d of February, 1775, which 
 was prior to the date of Wesley's letter, Asbury 
 makes this memorandum : 
 
 "I received a letter from Miss G. [Gilbert], at 
 Antigua, in which she informed me that Mr. G. 
 [Francis Gilbert] was going away ; and as there are 
 about three hundred members in society, she entreats 
 me to go and labor amongst them. And as Mr. Wes- 
 ley has given his consent, I feel inclined to go, and 
 take one of the young men with me. But there is 
 one obstacle in my way the administration of the 
 ordinances. It is possible to get the ordination of a 
 presbytery ; but this would be incompatible with 
 
 i Wesley's Works, Amer. Ed., Vol. VII, p. 11. 
 
AMERICAN CONFERENCES TO 1777. 113 
 
 Methodism, which would be an effectual bar in my 
 way." l 
 
 Who can say what would have been the effect on 
 American Methodism had Asbury gone to the island 
 of Antigua or returned to England? The history, as 
 we narrate it, will give at least a partial answer. 
 
 The third Annual Conference was held in Phila- 
 delphia, in May, 1775, beginning on Wednesday, the 
 17th, and closing on the 19th. 
 
 Asbury says : " From Wednesday till Friday we 
 spent in Conference, with great harmony and sweet- 
 ness of temper." 2 The Minutes contain the names of 
 three new preachers from Great Britain ; namely, James 
 Dempster, Martin Rodda, and Williarn Glendenning. 
 Mr. Dempster and Mr. Rodda had been sent out by 
 Mr. Wesley during the previous year, and Mr. Glen- 
 denuiug appears to have accompanied them as a vol- 
 unteer. James Dempster was a Scotchman of good 
 education, having been educated at the University of 
 Edinburgh ; but the name will be more interesting in 
 these later days from the fact that he was the father 
 of the Rev. John Dempster, D. D., the organizer of 
 theological seminaries in the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church. 
 
 The questions asked at this Conference were the 
 same as those asked in 1774, excepting that the 
 printed Minutes do not give the inquiry, "Are there 
 any objections to any one of the preachers?" though 
 no doubt it was asked. There are some directions 
 about what preachers are to change in three months 
 
 i Francis Asbury, Journal, 1821, Vol. I, p. 107. Id., p. 114. 
 
114 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 or six months; but the most important items are the 
 following : 
 
 " Thomas Bank in is to travel till the month of December, 
 and then take a quarter in New York. 
 
 " The preachers in Brunswick and Hanover, to change as 
 the assistant thinks proper. 
 
 "Thomas Kankin's deficiencies to be paid out of the 
 yearly collection. 
 
 " The preachers' expenses from Conference to their cir- 
 cuit to be paid out of the yearly collection. 
 
 " A general fast for the prosperity of the work, and for 
 the peace of America, on Tuesday, the 13th of July." 1 
 
 It will be recalled that in 1771 Mr. Asbury ex- 
 pressed himself as opposed to ministers remaining in 
 the cities ; but since that time he had been stationed in 
 New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore, and he de- 
 sired to be reappointed to Baltimore at this Confer- 
 ence. Mr. Asbury had also been anxious for " a cir- 
 culation of preachers to avoid partiality and popular- 
 ity." This -Mr. Rankin seems to have secured, for 
 at this Conference he sent Asbury to Norfolk. 
 
 Now the Revolutionary War was raging with 
 great fury, especially in the North. In the spring of 
 1776 Washington moved his army from Boston to 
 New York, which was threatened by the British, and 
 in the early part of June, Sir Henry Clinton landed 
 with a strong force on Long Island. 
 
 This probably had something to do with shifting 
 the Conference seat southwards; for the fourth An- 
 nual Conference opened in Baltimore, on the 21st of 
 May, 1776. 
 
 i Minutes from 1773 to 1813, pp. 9, 10. 
 
AMERICAN CONFERENCES TO 1777. 115 
 
 The questions asked this year were the same as 
 those of the previous year. There were no resolu- 
 tions or agreements, but another fast-day was ap- 
 pointed. At this Conference Freeborn Garrettson 
 was "admitted on trial," and Asbury was appointed 
 to Baltimore. 
 
 The fifth Annual Conference was held at Deer 
 Creek Meeting-house, in Harford County, Mary- 
 land, on the 20th day of May, 1777. 1 Over this 
 Conference Rankin presided, as he had over all held 
 to date. 2 The Minutes show the same questions as 
 before, with the restoration of the question, " Are 
 there any objections to any of the preachers?" and 
 the answer, " They were examined one by one." 
 Another fast-day was ordered, and the following 
 questions were asked : 
 
 " Ques. 7. As the present distress is such, are the preach- 
 ers resolved to take no step to detach themselves from the 
 work of God for the ensuing year ? 
 
 " Ans. We purpose, by the grace of God, not to take any 
 step that may separate us from the brethren, or from that 
 blessed work in which we are engaged. 
 
 14 Ques. 8. Has not the preaching of funeral sermons been 
 carried so far as to prostitute that venerable custom, and in 
 some sort to render it contemptible ? 
 
 " Ans. Yes. Therefore let all the preachers inform every 
 society, that we will not preach any but for those who we 
 have reasons to think died in the fear and favor of God." 3 
 
 The difficulties brought about by the war had 
 greatly interfered with religious operations, yet there 
 
 i Minutes, and Lee's History of Methodists, pp. 60, 61. 
 2 N. Bangs, Life of Freeborn Garrettson, 1832, p. 126. 
 Minutes for 1777 ; Lee's History of Methodists, p. 61. 
 
116 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 was an increase of twelve preachers, and a gain of 
 over two thousand members, and, notwithstanding 
 the unsettled state of the country, the preachers re- 
 solved to continue their services. 
 
 New York was occupied by the British, and while 
 the name of the appointment appears in the Minutes, 
 it was left without a preacher. The names of 
 Thomas Rankin and Francis Asbury appear in the 
 list of assistants, but not among those taking appoint- 
 ments. The reason of this will soon appear. 
 Rankin had decided to return to England, and 
 Asbury found it difficult to travel because of the an- 
 tagonism to the English. Most of the leading preach- 
 ers had come from Great Britain, and some of them, 
 Rodda, 1 for example, had been imprudent in express- 
 ing their views in favor of the mother country, 
 which was contrary to the advice of John and 
 Charles Wesley. 2 
 
 This created a prejudice against the other English- 
 born preachers, even when they took no sides. 
 Asbury met with obstacles as well as others. On 
 the 20th of June, 1776, he records that he " was 
 fined five pounds for preaching the gospel," near 
 Baltimore. 3 Since the Conference of 1776 the Colo- 
 nies had declared their independence, and, as the anti- 
 British feeling became more intense, a number of 
 
 1 Lee's Hislory of Methodists, p. 62; N. Bangs, Life of Freeborn 
 Garrettson, pp. 71, 72. 
 
 2 Wesley's letter to Rankin, "Wesley's Works, Amer. Ed., Vol. VII, 
 p. 8; Charles Wesley to Raukin, L. Tyerman's Life of Wesley, Vol. Ill, 
 pp. 194, 195. 
 
 Asbury 's Journal, 1821, Vol. I, p. 141. 
 
AMERICAN CONFERENCES TO 1777. 117 
 
 the English preachers seriously considered the wis- 
 dom of returning to England. On Tuesday, the 21st 
 of January, 1777, Asbury states that he received a 
 message informing him that Mr. R a [Rodda] and 
 Mr. G. S. [George Shadford] were waiting to see him. 
 Then he says: "After preaching, I set out, and met 
 my brethren the same night, and found them inclined 
 to leave America and embark for England. But I 
 had before resolved not to depart from the work on 
 any consideration. After some consultation, it was 
 thought best that Mr. R a [Rodda] should go to 
 Mr. R n [Rankin], and request his attendance 
 here." 1 In March the same subject came up. On 
 the 26th, Asbury says : " I received a letter from 
 Brother S. [Shadford] intimating that, according to 
 rule, the time was drawing near for us to return." 
 On Monday, the 30th, he says : " I was under some 
 exercise of mind in respect to the times; my brethren 
 are inclined to leave the continent, and I do not 
 know but something may be propounded to me which 
 would touch my conscience ; but my determination is 
 to trust in God, and be satisfied if the souls of my 
 fellow-men are saved." 3 So he 'was a little uncertain 
 as to the right course for him to pursue, but his 
 entry of April 2d shows a strengthening determina- 
 tion to stay. On that date he writes : " Having re- 
 ceived information that some of my brethren had de- 
 termined on their departure, I wrote to Brother S. 
 [Shadford], that as long as I could stay and preach 
 
 lAbbury's Journal, 1821, Vol. I, p. 176. Id., p. 182. Ibid. 
 
118 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 without injuring my conscience, it appeared as my 
 duty to abide with the flock ; but I must confess Satan 
 has harassed me with violent and various tempta- 
 tions." 1 So there was at times a conflict between 
 the purpose to remain and the desire to depart. 
 
 Before the Conference of 1777 convened, Asbury 
 appears to have made up his mind to remain in 
 America. In his journal he intiuiates as much in 
 his account of the Conference, and at the same time 
 gives .some items of information which give us a 
 fuller conception as to the doings of the Conference 
 than we can gather from the printed Minutes. 
 
 He says that on Monday, May 12th, he set out for 
 the " Yearly Conference, and having preached at 
 Mr. P.'s by the way, came safe to Mr. G.'s, and was 
 glad to see the preachers there." 
 
 Whether this gathering was accidental or by agree- 
 ment we can not say. It looks a little like a caucus. 
 Certainly, whether premeditated or not, it was of the 
 nature of a preparatory meeting. Continuing, he re- 
 marks : " We had some weighty conversation on dif- 
 ferent points, and, among other things, it was asked 
 whether we could give our consent that Mr. R. [Ran- 
 kin] should baptize, as there appeared to be a present 
 necessity. But it was objected that this would be a 
 breach of our discipline, and it was not probable that 
 things would continue long in such a disordered state. 
 The next clay, with great harmony and joint consent, 
 we drew a rough draught for stationing the preachers 
 the ensuing year. And on Friday we conversed on 
 
 i Asbury's Journal, 1821, Vol. I, pp. 182, 183. 
 
AMERICAN CONFERENCES TO 1777. 119 
 
 the propriety of signing certificates avouching good 
 conduct for such of the preachers as chose to go to 
 Europe. But I could not see the propriety of it at 
 this time. We also conversed on such rules as might 
 be proper for the regulation of the preachers who 
 abide on the continent. And it was judged necessary 
 that a committee should be appointed to superintend 
 the whole. And on Monday [May 19th] we rode to- 
 gether to attend the Conference at Deer Creek." 1 
 
 Most assuredly this was a-remarkable meeting. It 
 looks too systematic to have been entirely accidental, 
 and one would be pardoned for presuming that it had 
 been prearranged that these preachers should meet at 
 this point more than a week before Conference, and 
 remain in session about a week. Then the matters 
 discussed were of a striking character, as will be seen 
 after the most hasty reading. 
 
 The pressure for the sacraments and the real need 
 of ministers to administer them to the Methodists, 
 must have been very manifest when these preachers 
 discussed the question as to whether " Mr. R. should 
 baptize." It is quite certain that Mr. Ran kin was not 
 present at this time, and it would seem that it was be- 
 cause of his probable departure from the country that 
 most of these points were considered. In a short time 
 he, Wesley's representative, would return to Great 
 Britain. Without Wesley's general assistant, they 
 would be like a body without a head. The war would 
 prevent communication with Wesley, or the reception 
 of directions from him. They would be isolated and 
 
 i Asbury's Journal, 1821, Vol. I, p. 186. 
 
120 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 left to themselves, and so they " conversed on such 
 rules as might be proper for the regulation of the 
 preachers who abide on the continent" after Rank in 
 and others whom Wesley had sent should leave for 
 British shores. And so "it was judged necessary that 
 a committee should be appointed to superintend the 
 whole." 
 
 Did Asbury suggest that arrangement? Possibly 
 he did. It is simply the plan proposed by Wesley in 
 1769 for the Conference to follow when death took 
 him from their head, and at that time Asbury was 
 one of Wesley's preachers in England, and doubtless 
 knew about the idea of committee control. Prob- 
 ably the American preachers generally were familiar 
 with it. Whether they knew of Wesley's plan or not, 
 it is plain that at that time they had no thought of 
 permitting one person to have supreme control in the 
 absence of Wesley's representative. However, there 
 is no evidence in the Minutes that the Conference 
 adopted this scheme of government, though Dr. 
 Stevens, without giving his authority, says: "As 
 the English preachers had retired before the storm of 
 the Revolution, and Asbury was in confinement, the 
 session of that body in 1777 appointed a committee 
 of five to take the general superintendency of the 
 denomination. It consisted of Gatch, Dromgoole, 
 Glendenning, Ruff, and Watters. Gatch served in 
 this capacity till Asbury could again venture into the 
 open field." 1 Evidently there are some errors in this 
 
 i A. Stevens, History of Methodist Episcopal Church, 1865, Vol. 
 I, p. 381. 
 
AMERICAN CONFERENCES TO 1777. 121 
 
 statement. The English preachers were at the Con- 
 ference of 1777. Asbury was not "in confinement/' 
 but was present also, and did not retire until the 
 next year, as we shall see. Further, if such a com- 
 mittee had been appointed, Asbury would probably 
 have been a member; or if not, Watters, as the old- 
 est preacher, would have been named first. What is 
 more, Gatch that very year was compelled to retire 
 from the effective work on account of injuries and 
 illness, and, as Stevens himself shows, his name does 
 not again appear in the Minutes as taking 'an appoint- 
 ment until years after, when he had removed to Ohio. l 
 Lee, who mentions many minor details of the Con- 
 ferences, makes no reference to any such arrangement. 
 Dr. Stevens possibly drew his information from 
 Lednum, who says: "As it was probable that all the 
 English preachers would return home on account of 
 the war, it was judged most prudent to appoint a com- 
 mittee of five of the most judicious of the preachers 
 that would remain to superintend the work. Messrs. 
 Wm. Watters, Philip Gatch, Daniel Ruff, Edward 
 Dromgoole, and William Glendenning were the 
 committee." 2 
 
 Lednum quotes no authority; but his putting of 
 the case is more probable than that of Stevens ; and 
 yet neither Asbury nor Lee refer to such an appoint- 
 ment by the Conference, and there is no mention of it 
 in the Minutes of 1777. 
 
 1 A. Stevens, History of Methodist Episcopal Church, Vol. I, pp. 
 879-381. 
 
 2 Rev. John Lednum, History of Rise of Methodism In America, 
 Philadelphia, 1859, p. 190. 
 
 9 
 
122 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 Asbury throws a little more light upon the Con- 
 ference in the final part of his memorandum. He 
 says : 
 
 '"So greatly has the Lord increased the number of 
 traveling preachers within these few years that we 
 have now twenty-seven who attend the circuits, and 
 twenty of them were present at this Conference. Both 
 our public and private business was conducted with 
 great harmony, peace, and love. Our brethren who 
 intend to return to Europe have agreed to stay till 
 the way is quite open. I preached on the charge 
 which our Lord gave his apostles, * Behold, I send 
 you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves; be ye 
 therefore wise as serpents and harmless as doves.' 
 Our Conference ended with a love-feast and watch- 
 night. But when the time of parting came, many 
 wept as if they had lost their first-born sons. They 
 appeared to be in the deepest distress, thinking, as I 
 suppose, they should not see the faces of the English 
 preachers any more. This was such a parting as I 
 never saw before. Our Conference has been a great 
 time, a season of uncommon affection, and we must 
 acknowledge that God has directed, owned, and 
 blessed us in the work. A certificate, as mentioned 
 above, had been acceded to, and signed in the Con- 
 ference." l 
 
 Reliable evidence shows that neither the Minutes 
 nor Mr. Asbury record all that occurred at the Con- 
 ference of 1777. There is positive proof that the 
 question of permitting the Methodist preachers to 
 
 i Asbury's Journal, Vol. I, p. 188. 
 
AMERICAN CONFERENCES TO 1777. 123 
 
 administer the sacraments to the Methodist people, 
 instead of subsiding, had grown in force, and was 
 again brought up formally at this Conference. Free- 
 born Garrettson, who was a member of this Confer- 
 ence, states in his manuscript notes that at this session 
 it was asked: "Shall the preachers in America ad- 
 minister the ordinances?" and that the answer given 
 was: "We will suspend them until the next Con- 
 ference." l In other words, as we interpret the 
 answer, consideration of the question was postponed 
 until the Annual Conference of the following year. 
 It is probable that Mr. Garrettson, drawing on 
 his memory, gave the substance of the question and 
 answer, rather than the exact wording, but the manu- 
 script journal 2 of the Rev. Philip Gatch, who was 
 also present at the Conference, gives us probably the 
 exact language. In his journal Mr. Gatch records 
 that the following questions were asked and the fol- 
 lowing answers given : 
 
 " Ques. What shall be done with respect to the ordinances ? 
 
 " Ans. Let the preachers and people pursue the old plan 
 as from the beginning. 
 
 " Ques. What alteration may we make in our original plan ? 
 
 " Ans. Our next Conference will, if God permits, show 
 us more clearly." 3 
 
 This, no doubt, is substantially accurate, and, as 
 will be seen, the sacramental question did come up at 
 the next Conference. 
 
 1 Nathan Bangs, Life of the Rev. Freeborn Garrettsou, New York, 
 1832, p. 126; N. Bangs, History of Methodist Episcopal Church, 1857, 
 Vol. I, p. 129. 
 
 2 The Journal was in the possession of the Rev. C. Elliott, D. D. 
 8 Leroy M. Lee, D. D., Life and Times of Rev. Jesse Lee, Nashville, 
 
 I860, p 78. 
 
124 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 Before that Conference convened, nearly all the 
 remaining English preachers embarked for England. 
 The British troops had landed on the 25th of Au- 
 gust, 1777, at the head of Elk River, Maryland, and 
 immediately marched northward, and entered Phila- 
 delphia in September. This appeared to be a favor- 
 able time for the departure of those who preferred 
 their mother country; so about the middle of the 
 latter mouth Mr. Ran kin and Mr. Rodda sailed for 
 Europe. 1 
 
 Shadford and Asbury still tarried, but in a state 
 of doubt. On the 21st of July, 1777, Mr. Asbury 
 says: "Heard Mr. Rankin preach his last sermon.. 
 My mind was a little dejected, and I now felt some 
 desire to return to England, but was willing to 
 commit the matter to the Lord." 2 At last the day 
 of final decision came. In the beginning of March, 
 1778, Shadford kept a day of private fasting and 
 prayer with Mr. Asbury, in order to know the 
 will of God;" 3 and Ezekiel Cooper tells us that, 
 " after the season of fasting and prayer, Shadford 
 concluded, and observed that he had an answer to 
 leave the country and return to England ; but Asbury, 
 who received an answer to stay, replied, * If you are 
 called to go, I am called to stay ; so we must part. 7 4 
 From that moment," says Cooper, " he made 
 America his country and his home." 
 
 i Jesse Lee, History of Methodists, 1810, p. 62. 
 
 Asbury 's Journal, Vol. I, p. 190. 
 
 sjesse Lee, History of Methodists, 1810, p. 64. 
 
 * Ezekiel Cooper, Funeral Discourse on the Death of the Rev. Fran- 
 cis Asbury, Superintendent or Senior Bishop of the Methodist Epis- 
 copal Church, Philadelphia, 1819, p. 82. 
 
AMERICAN CONFERENCES TO 1777. 125 
 
 Shadford left the country, and Asbury, though he 
 remained, was compelled to go into retirement. In 
 1777, his work being in Baltimore and vicinity, it 
 was demanded that he take the oath of allegiance to 
 the State of Maryland ; but this, he held, he could not 
 conscientiously do, and "the result was that he was 
 obliged to leave the State and go to Delaware, where 
 the State oath was not required of clergymen." 1 In 
 the quaint language of Jesse Lee, "On the 5th day of 
 March, Mr. Asbury began to lye by at Thomas 
 White's, in the Delaware State, where he shut 
 himself up." 2 
 
 Asbury thus explains his retirement to Delaware : 
 
 " The reason of this retirement was as follows : 
 From March 10, 1778, on conscientious principles I 
 was a non-juror, and could not preach in the State of 
 Maryland, and therefore withdrew to the Delaware 
 State, where the clergy were not required to take the 
 State oath, though with a clear conscience I could 
 have taken the oath of the Delaware State had it 
 been required, and would have done it had I not 
 been prevented by a tender fear of hurting the scru- 
 pulous consciences of others. St. Paul saith : ' When 
 ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak 
 conscience, ye sin against Christ/ (1 Cor. viii, 12.)" 3 
 
 During most of this period of seclusion, Asbury 
 was entertained at the hospitable mansion of Judge 
 W T hite, in Kent County, Delaware ; but part of the 
 
 1 Rev. W. P. Strickland, Life of Francis Asbury, 1858, p. 112. 
 
 2 Jesse Lee, History of Methodists, 1810, p. 64. 
 Asbury's Journal, 1821, Vol. I, p. 208. 
 
126 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 time he was compelled to seek shelter in more se- 
 cluded places. The excited condition of the country, 
 and the suspicion attaching to him because of his 
 English birth, gave him great mental distress; as he 
 says, on the 13th of March : " I was under some 
 heaviness of mind. But it was no wonder, three 
 thousand miles from home, my friends have left me ; I 
 am considered by some as an enemy of the country ; 
 every day liable to be seized by violence, and abused. 
 However, all this is but a trifle to suifer for Christ 
 and the salvation of souls." 1 
 
 All these facts have a very important bearing 
 upon the ecclesiastical development of American 
 Methodism. The war, causing the departure of 
 Rankin and other leading English preachers and the 
 retirement of Asbury, made a marked change in the 
 conditions. Now there was not one preacher in the 
 Conference who had been sent over by Mr. Wesley. 
 His direct control was interrupted by the war, and the 
 American preachers were left to themselves. The first 
 period of the American Conferences had ended, and 
 a new epoch had been reached. 
 
 lAsbury's Journal, 1821, Vol. I, p. 205. 
 
CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE AMERICAN CONFERENCES FROM 1778 TO 1781. 
 
 THE Sixth Annual Conference, and the first under 
 the new conditions, was held in Leesburg, Vir- 
 ginia, May 19, 1778. As there was no general assist- 
 ant of Mr. Wesley present, " Mr. William Watters, 
 being the oldest American preacher, was called to the 
 chair." 1 Heretofore, Mr. Rankin had presided and 
 made the appointments as the representative of Mr. 
 Wesley, and this was the first time for an American 
 Conference to elect its presiding officer. In the 
 printed Minutes, Mr. Watters is placed at the head of 
 the assistants, no doubt on the ground of seniority 
 and because of his election to the presidency of the 
 Conference, so that his name appears in the same rela- 
 tive position as did that of Rankin in the Minutes of 
 1774. Mr. Asbury was not present at the Confer- 
 ence, and his name does not appear in the Minutes; 
 but for the first time there appears the name of James 
 O'Kelly, who was to play an important part in the 
 future history of Methodism. New York, Philadel- 
 phia, Chester, Frederick, and Norfolk were, on ac- 
 count of the war, dropped out of the list of appoint- 
 ments for the time being. The printed Minutes show 
 that the Second Question was changed from "What 
 
 1 N. Bangs, Life of Freeboru Garrettscm, 3d Ed., 1832, p. 126. 
 
 127 
 
128 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 preachers are admitted on trial ?" to "What preachers, 
 remain on trial ?" Two or three new questions were 
 introduced, namely: 
 
 " Ques. 6. Who shall act as general stewards? 
 
 " Am. William Moore, Henry Fry. 
 
 " Ques. 7. What was done with the balance of the col- 
 lection ? 
 
 *' Ans. Lodged with Henry Fry. 
 
 " Ques. 8. What shall the preachers be allowed for quar- 
 terage ? 
 
 "Ans. Eight pounds Virginia currency." 1 
 
 Lee explains the change in allowance from 6 
 Pennsylvania currency to the above amount. He 
 says: "As paper money was much depreciated, the 
 preachers concluded to allow each traveling preacher 
 8 Virginia money a quarter, or 32 per year." 2 An- 
 other fast-day was appointed. 
 
 This, in brief, is all the printed Minutes contain; 
 but we have already ascertained that the printed 
 Minutes do not always show everything that actually 
 transpired, and so in this instance we conclude that 
 possibly this was only a very brief summary. Further, 
 when we remember how anxious the American Meth- 
 odists had been to have the sacraments among them- 
 selves, but that they had been restrained by the En- 
 glish Minutes and the English preachers, we must 
 think it surprising if, in this first Conference, when 
 they were practically left to themselves, they said 
 nothing at all upon the subject. 
 
 Other data demonstrate that the matter was before 
 
 1 Printed Minutes for 1778. 
 
 2 Jesse Lee, Hist, of Methodists, 1810, p. 63. 
 
AMERICAN CONFERENCES, 1778 TO 1781. 129 
 
 the Conference. It had been referred by the Confer- 
 ence of 1777 to the Conference of 1778. The Rev. 
 Freeborn Garrettson states that the question, "Shall 
 we administer the ordinances?" was again proposed. 
 " I was present/ 7 says Mr. Garrettson, " and the an- 
 swer was, 'Lay it over until the next Conference/ 
 which was appointed to be held in Fluvanna County, 
 Virginia, May 18, 1779, at what was called the 
 Broken-back Church." 1 Philip Gatch says, in his 
 journal, that the same question was again asked, and 
 that it was answered : " We unanimously agree to 
 refer it to the next Conference." 2 
 
 As already observed, Asbury's name does not ap- 
 pear in the printed Minutes of 1778. As he did not 
 receive an appointment to a charge and was not pres- 
 ent at the session, he was considered to have ceased 
 to be a member of the Conference. As opportunity 
 afforded he preached from time to time, and as the 
 danger gradually diminished he extended his tours. 
 
 Lednum remarks that, "about this time, Mr. 
 Asbury heard seme agreeable news, which probably 
 was 'that a letter which he wrote to Mr. Ran kin in 
 1777, in which he gave it as his opinion that the 
 Americans would become a free and independent 
 Nation, and that he was too much knit in affection to 
 many of them to leave them, and that Methodist 
 preachers had a great work to do under God in this 
 country/ had fallen into the hands of the American 
 
 IN. Bangs, Life of Rev. Freeborn Garrettson, 3d Ed., 1832, p. 126; 
 N. Bangs, Hist, of M. E. Church, Vol. I, p. 129. 
 
 2Leroy M. Lee,l>. D., Life of Rev. Je.sse Lee, I860, p. 79. 
 
130 GOVKRNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 officers, and had produced a great change in their 
 opinions and feelings towards him. His excellency, 
 Caesar Rodney, governor of Delaware, aware of this, 
 was quite favorable to him and the Methodists." 1 
 
 The seclusion, however, had its good side ; for, as 
 his journals show, Asbury devoted his time to study 
 and extensive reading that doubtless better fitted him 
 for the exalted sphere he was to occupy. He records 
 the fact that he read a great variety of standard 
 works. In one entry he says : " I applied myself to 
 the Greek and Latin Testament." 2 Perhaps it was 
 this opportunity for study that led him to say : "Upon 
 mature reflection I do not repent my late voluntary 
 retirement -in the State of Delaware." 3 And his new 
 experience may have led him to see that the preacher 
 of the Word needs time for general study and special 
 preparation; for, about ten days after making the 
 entry just quoted, he refers to the obstacles in the 
 way of the Methodist preacher of that day who de- 
 sired to study, and suggests that they ought to have 
 spare time "for the purpose of improving them- 
 selves." 4 
 
 Though in seclusion, he no doubt was kept well 
 informed as to what was occurring in American Meth- 
 odism. On the 30th of June, 1778, he says : " Brother 
 F. G. [Freeborn Garrettson] came to see me." 5 This 
 was a little more than a month after the Conference 
 of 1778, and no doubt Mr. Garrettson fully acquainted 
 
 1 Rev. Johii Lednum, Rise of Methodism in America, Philadelphia, 
 1859, p. 226. 
 
 2 Asbury *s Journal, 1821, Vol. I, p. 206. 8 /d., p. 229. * Id., p. 230. 
 6 Id., p. 216. 
 
AMERICAN CONFERENCES, 1778 TO 1781. 131 
 
 him with all that had taken place at that session, and 
 especially with the fact that at the next Conference 
 the sacramental question was to be considered. His 
 journal presents other indications that various items 
 of information reached him from time to time, and in 
 his moments of meditation he possibly matured plans 
 for the future. That he thought there would be a 
 brighter future for him seems more than probable. 
 Thus, on the 30th day of March, 1779, he writes: "I 
 then rode on to Brother Shaw's, where I heard agree- 
 able news. Peradventure there is something in the 
 womb of providence for which the Lord hath been 
 preparing me by bringing me through fire and 
 water." 1 
 
 What was this pleasing news? What was this 
 brighter anticipation? He does not say, but leaves us 
 to whatever our imaginations may picture. 
 
 We are now on the eve of important events. It 
 will be remembered that the Conference of 1778 
 ordered that the next Annual Conference should 
 meet at Fluvanna, Virginia, on the 18th of May, 
 yet on the 28th of April, 1779, twenty days before 
 the time, we find a Conference meeting at Judge 
 White's, the recent home of Asbury, in Kent County, 
 Delaware. 2 
 
 At once the reader will ask, Who called this Con- 
 ference, and by what authority was the call issued? 
 Legally, as matters then stood, no one but the Con- 
 ference could fix the place for holding the Coufer- 
 
 lAsbury's Journal, 1821, Vol. I, p. 236. 
 
 Printed Minutes, 1773-1813, p. 18 ; Asbury's Journal, Vol. I, p. 237. 
 
132 GOVERNING CONFKRKNCK IN METHODISM. 
 
 ence. That being the case, no one man and no number 
 of men had a legal right to go contrary to the order 
 of the Conference. There was only a minority of the 
 preachers at the Kent County meeting, so that it is plain 
 this gathering was not at the request of the majority. 
 
 The fact that this Conference was held at Asbury's 
 temporary home would lead to the inference that As- 
 bury probably called or suggested it. Some other 
 one may have originated the idea, but of this there 
 is no proof. It is, however, certain that it was held 
 at Judge White's for the convenience of Mr. Asbury. 
 Mr. Asbury was not at the Conference of 1778, as it 
 was not convenient for him to go out of the State of 
 Delaware to attend the Conference to be held in Vir- 
 ginia that year. 
 
 There is no legal ground on which Mr. Asbury 
 could at that time call a legal Conference. Even if 
 Mr. Wesley's general assistant could change the 
 time and place fixed for a Conference, neither Mr. 
 Asbury nor any other man held this position at that 
 time, and, therefore, no one had a right to make the 
 change. Mr. Asbury was not even recognized as a 
 member by the Conference of 1778; but whether he 
 was or was not really a member, or whether he or 
 some other preacher called this meeting of the preach- 
 ers, it can not fairly be called the legal Annual Con- 
 ference of the year; and if it is to be justified, it must 
 be on other than strictly legal grounds. 
 
 Asbury gives the following account of the Confer- 
 ence in Delaware : "Our Conference for the Northern 
 stations began at Thomas White's. All our preachers 
 
AMERICAN CONFERENCES, 1778 TO 1781. 133 
 
 on these stations were present, and united. We had 
 much prayer, love, and harmony; and we all agreed 
 to walk by the same rule and to mind the same thiug. 
 As we had great reason to fear that our brethren to 
 the southward were in danger of separating from us, we 
 wrote them a soft, healing epistle. On these Northern 
 stations we have now about seventeen traveling preach- 
 ers. We appointed our next Conference to be held 
 in Baltimore town, the last Tuesday in April next." 1 
 
 On Monday, May 3, 1779, he writes: "Yesterday 
 we had some melting under the Word, at the house 
 of E. White ; and to-day I wrote to John Dickins, to 
 Philip Gatch, Edward Dromgoole, 2 and William Glen- 
 denning, urging them, if possible, to prevent a sepa- 
 ration among the preachers in the South that is, 
 Virginia and North Carolina and I entertain great 
 hopes that the breach will be healed; if not, the 
 consequences may be bad." 3 
 
 This, at first glance, must seem a surprising state- 
 ment. He fears the brethren from the South are in 
 danger of separating, and he writes certain parties to 
 endeavor to prevent a separation ; and yet these 
 Northern preachers, who rally around Mr. Asbury, 
 have practically withdrawn from the Southern preach- 
 ers, and stand in the attitude of separatists. If they 
 had all met together, and the Southerners had se- 
 ceded, then the case would have been different; or 
 even if all had met at the place legally designated, 
 
 i Asbury's Journal, 1S21, Vol. I, pp. 237, 238. 
 
 * In Minutes, Drumgole ; spelled by others Dromgoole. 
 
 3 Asbury's Journal, Vol. I, p. 238. 
 
134 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN MKTHODISM. 
 
 and the Southerners, having a majority, had carried 
 measures to which the Northern preachers were con- 
 scientiously opposed, and then the Northern minority 
 withdrew on principle, the case would have been 
 different. As it was, the so-called Northern preach- 
 ers did not wait for the regular Conference, but met 
 in advance, and then all who had responded to the 
 invitation to attend the meeting at Judge White's 
 absented themselves from the regular session. What 
 is equally significant is, that they acted as though 
 they were the legal Conference, and fixed the time 
 and place for the next Conference. It should be ob- 
 served at this point that the members of the Delaware 
 Conference were Northerners merely in the sense that 
 their charges were generally north of Virginia, for 
 there were preachers from Delaware and Maryland 
 in attendance. 
 
 The printed Minutes of the Kent County Confer- 
 ence show the following answer to the question, 
 "Why was the Delaware Conference held?" "Ans. 
 For the convenience of the preachers in the North- 
 ern stations, that we all might have an opportunity of 
 meeting in Conference, it being unadvisable for 
 Brother Asbury and Brother Run , with some others, 
 to attend in Virginia; it is considered also as pre- 
 paratory to the Conference in Virginia. Our senti- 
 ments to be given in by Brother Watters." 1 
 
 So the Rev. Jesse Lee states that " the preachers 
 in the Northern States held a preparatory Conference 
 at Thomas White's, in Delaware State, in order that 
 
 i Printed Minutes, 1773-1813, p. 19. 
 
AMERICAN CONFERENCES, 1778 TO 1781. 135 
 
 their sentiments might be carried by Brother William 
 Watters to the Conference in Virginia; for it was 
 judged to be improper for Brother Asbury to leave 
 his solitary retreat, to go to Virginia." 1 
 
 Originally it may have been thought that it would 
 be a preparatory Conference; but it acted as though 
 it was the legal Conference, and treated the other as 
 a seceding body. It might be called a preparatory 
 meeting of a portion of the preachers, if, after com- 
 ing to a conclusion as to their proper attitude on the 
 sacramental question, they had then gone on to Flu- 
 vanna and taken their places in the regularly ordered 
 session. Instead of that, they transacted business as 
 the Conference, fixed the time and place for their next 
 annual session, received their appointments, and went to 
 their charges, satisfying themselves with sending a letter 
 and a messenger to the regular Conference in Virginia. 
 
 The convenience of Mr. Asbury or any other in- 
 dividual preacher was not enough to justify such a 
 course ; and at that time Asbury had no rank higher 
 than that of the majority of the preachers. 
 
 The student of history can not resist the con- 
 clusion that this so-called Conference was held be- 
 cause it was known that the legal Conference would 
 consider the sacramental question, and it was believed 
 the majority would authorize the preachers to admin- 
 ister the sacraments to their own people. It was, so 
 to speak, a flank movement to consolidate those who 
 were opposed to this action, and regarding the Flu- 
 vanna session as the regular Conference, the call for 
 
 i Jesse Lee, History of Methodists, 1810, p. 67. 
 
136 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 this meeting was of a revolutionary character, while 
 the whole movement suggests Asbury's acute man- 
 agement. 
 
 The only justification for such a course was in the 
 supposed necessity for such an act in order to preserve 
 the unity of Wesleyan Methodism. Asbury held 
 that Wesley was the head of American as well as 
 British Methodism; and, therefore, that it was the 
 duty of the Americans to adhere to Wesley's ^teach- 
 ings and the agreement of the first American Con- 
 ference, which was to receive the sacraments from the 
 Church of England clergymen. 
 
 As Asbury and those who met in Conference with 
 him at Judge White's held these views, they looked 
 upon themselves as the true Wesleyan Methodists, 
 and considered those who were in favor of having 
 the sacraments from the Methodist preachers as being 
 "in danger of separating" from them. 
 
 Still the Northern preachers erred in acting before 
 the regular Conference had convened and decided. 
 Admitting that it was right for them to hold their 
 " preparatory Conference," or caucus, to decide upon a 
 policy, they should then have gone to the regular 
 Conference, and, as members of that body, expressed 
 their views, and endeavored to persuade others to 
 agree with them. No one can tell what might have 
 been the effect. The result of subsequent negoti- 
 ations suggest, that they might have succeeded ; but 
 if they had failed, then they would have had stronger 
 reasons for forming a new Conference. As it was, 
 they took the surest way to precipitate the very 
 
AMERICAN CONFERENCES, 1778 TO 1781. 137 
 
 action they deprecated; for by their absence they 
 left the May Conference overwhelmingly under the 
 influence of those who favored the change. 
 
 With one exception, all the preachers who at- 
 tended the meeting in Delaware absented themselves 
 from the regular Conference; and, " under these circum- 
 stances, the Virginia Conference complained that an 
 illegal Conference had been held, to keep as many of 
 the Northern preachers from the session as possible, 
 lest they should join 'with them in adopting the 
 ordinances." l 
 
 They anticipated the action, and practically se- 
 ceded before the deed was done ; and their only 
 defense is in the fact that they adhered to Wesley and 
 the English Minutes and to the former agreement of 
 the American Conference. 
 
 The printed Minutes of this " so-called " 2 prepar- 
 atory Conference contain much that is exceedingly 
 interesting. For the first time we find the question, 
 "Who desist from traveling?" The following con- 
 clusions were reached, namely: 
 
 " No helper to make any alteration in the circuit, 
 or appoint preaching in any new place, without con- 
 sulting the assistant." 
 
 " Every exhorter and local preacher to go by the 
 directions of the assistants where, and only where, 
 they shall appoint." 
 
 Question 11 was, "What shall be done with the 
 children ?" and to this the answer was : " Meet them 
 
 i Leroy M. Lee, Life of Jesse Lee, 1860, pp. 81 and 82. 
 'Jesse Lee, History of Methodists, p. 67. 
 
 10 
 
138 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 once a fortnight, and examine the parents with re- 
 gard to their conduct toward them." 
 
 Question 10 was the key to at least part of the 
 reason for the assembling of these preachers. It was: 
 "Shall we guard against a separation from the Church, 
 directly or indirectly?" The answer given was: "By 
 all means." 
 
 The 12th and 13th questions are the most impor- 
 tant and suggestive. Question 12 was: "Ought not 
 Brother Asbury to act as general assistant in Amer- 
 ica ?" The answer was : " He ought : 1st. On account 
 of his age; 2d. Because originally appointed by Mr. 
 Wesley; 3d. Being joined with Messrs. Rankin and 
 Shad ford by express order from Mr. Wesley." 
 
 This was a good deal for this " preparatory Con- 
 ference " to do. It only contained about one-third of 
 the American preachers ; and it is not clear that, 
 if all the preachers had met together in Confer- 
 ence, they would have taken precisely this action. 
 Mr. Asbury was the senior, and, as such, would have 
 been respected. He had been appointed assistant by 
 Mr. Wesley ; but in a short time he was superseded 
 by the appointment of Mr. Rankin as general assist- 
 ant, which title Mr. Asbury had never borne ; and, as 
 we have seen, Asbury had been recalled to England 
 by Mr. Wesley. As Dr. Stevens remarks on the 3d 
 part of the answer, " The last reason is ambiguous." } 
 
 This meeting practically elected Mr. Asbury gen- 
 eral assistant, and he thus became the head of a 
 section of the American preachers. Possibly this was 
 
 1 A. Stevens, History of Methodist Episcopal Church, Vol. II, p 57. 
 
AMERICAN CONFERENCES, 1778 TO 1781. 139 
 
 part of the " agreeable news " he had heard on the 
 30th of March. The most remarkable act, however, 
 is to be found in the answer to the 13th question : 
 " How far shall his power extend ?" This query as 
 to his power was answered as follows : 
 
 " On hearing every preacher for and against what 
 is in debate, the right of determination shall rest 
 with him, according to the Minutes;" 1 that is to say, 
 "The Large Minutes" collated by Wesley. Bangs, 
 commenting on this action, says : " It seems, there- 
 fore, that they were not in the habit, at that time, of 
 determining debatable questions by a majority of 
 votes ; but, in imitation of the practice of Mr. Wes- 
 ley, after hearing all that could be said pro and con, 
 the presiding officer decided the point." 2 These 
 " Northern " preachers had thus placed themselves 
 under the absolute control of Mr. Asbury, not only 
 as to their appointments, but also as to Conference 
 action. They might debate questions, but he, and he 
 only, had the power to decide. It was apparently a 
 voluntary submission to personal government at a time 
 when the circumstances of their isolation from Wes- 
 ley, and the Declaration of Independence on the part 
 of the Colonies, rendered it possible for them to take 
 the government into their own hands. 
 
 In answer to the sixth question, a Who of the 
 preachers are willing to take the station this Con- 
 ference shall place them in, and continue till next 
 
 i Printed Minutes, 1773-1813, p. 20. 
 
 *N. Bangs, D. D., History of the Methodist Episcopal Church, New 
 York, 1857, 10th Ed., Vol. I, pp. 131 and 132. 
 
140 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 Conference?" 1 sixteen preachers said that they 
 would. This was a new question, and evidently was 
 part of the process of consolidating the Northern 
 preachers in view of the probable dissent of the 
 regular Conference. Another act of the same char- 
 acter was appointing their next Annual Confer- 
 ence to be held in Baltimore on the last Tuesday 
 of the next April. May was the regular month for 
 the holding of the regular Conference, and fixing 
 April for this new body was to effectually prevent 
 the coalescence of its members with the majority, who 
 met in the regular Conference. So this irregular 
 Conference acted as the legal Conference, and treated 
 the regularly called Conference as separatists in ad- 
 vance of their taking any action, and also made such 
 arrangements as insured a permanent division, unless 
 the majority yielded to their views. In a little while 
 the time arrived for the holding of the regular Con- 
 ference, which convened at the Broken-back Church, 
 in Fluvanna County, Virginia, on the 18th of May, 
 1779. This, Lee speaks of as the " seventh Confer- 
 ence," counting the one in Delaware as a " prepara- 
 tory Conference. " 2 
 
 The Rev. William Watters,who attended the Dela- 
 ware meeting, also attended the Conference in Vir- 
 ginia. Waiters received "no notice" of the proposed 
 Conference at Judge White's, but hearing of it in- 
 directly, he "determined, if possible," to get there, 
 "though in a very weak state of health," in order 
 
 Minutes, 1773-1813, p. 18. 
 
 2 Jesse Lee, History of Methodists, p. 67. 
 
AMERICAN CONFERENCES, 1778 TO 1781. 141 
 
 that he might persuade "Asbury to attend the regu- 
 larly appointed Conference, to be held on the 18th 
 of May, 1779, in Fluvanna County." l If Watters 
 knew nothing of the proposed Conference with As- 
 bury by direct notification, it is probable that others 
 received "no notice" of it, and that only those were 
 invited who were known to agree on the main prin- 
 ciple involved. He did not succeed in inducing Mr. 
 Asbury to attend the legal Conference, but was 
 specially commissioned to communicate to the Vir- 
 ginia Conference the "sentiments" of the Delaware 
 meeting, "as a kind of protest against the adoption 
 of any measures" 5 in favor of administering the 
 sacraments. Mr. Watters was the only preacher who 
 attended both Conferences. He had been elected 
 the year before to preside over the Conference, be- 
 cause he was the senior preacher. Whether he pre- 
 sided this year we do not know; but it is significant 
 that the printed Minutes of the Fluvanna Conference 
 place his name last in the list of assistants, and put 
 the name of James O'Kelly first, while in the list in 
 Asbury ? s Conference of the next year the name of 
 William Watters stands next to that of Asbury. The 
 explanation is evident. Mr. Watters did not approve 
 of the action taken by the Virginia Conference, and 
 so lost his popularity in the one and gave his adher- 
 ence to the other. 
 
 This Conference was composed of over two-thirds 
 
 1 Watters's Life, p. 72 ; A. Stevens, History of Methodist Episcopal 
 Church, Vol. II, pp. 60, 61. 
 
 2 Leroy M. Lee, Life of Jesse Lee, p. 81. 
 
142 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 of the preachers in America, and it covered twice as 
 many charges as were represented at Judge White's. 
 It was, therefore, not only the legal, but, at the same 
 time, the representative Conference. The printed 
 Minutes of both Conferences mention Baltimore and 
 Frederick, with the names of the sa-me preachers. The 
 printed Minutes of the Conference held at Fluvanna 
 contain four new questions. The first question was 
 changed from "What preachers are admitted this 
 year?" to "Who are admitted on trial?" It was 
 asked, " What shall be done with the preachers who 
 were upon trial last year?" and it was answered, "To 
 be continued till next Conference." Lee says: "Be- 
 fore this Conference, it had been a constant practice 
 to take a preacher upon trial for one year only, and 
 then admit him into full connection. But from that 
 time it has been a constant practice, even to the 
 present day, to keep a young preacher on trial for two 
 years at least before he is admitted into full con- 
 nection ; and at the expiration of two years, if the 
 Conference have doubts concerning the piety, gifts, 
 or usefulness of the preacher, they continue him on 
 trial for three years, or a longer time, as they may 
 judge best." * 
 
 "Shall any preacher receive quarterage who is 
 able to travel and does not?" was answered, "No." 
 " In what light shall we view those preachers who 
 receive money by subscription ?" was answered, "As 
 excluded from the Methodist connection." 2 
 
 i Jesse Lee, History of Methodists, 1810, p. 68. 
 Printed Minutes, 1773-1813, p. 22. 
 
AMERICAN CONFERENCES, 1778 TO 1781. 143 
 
 Strange to say, the most important thing done at 
 that Conference is not mentioned in the printed Min- 
 utes. The Rev. Freeborn Garrettson says : " In 
 May, 1779, the regular Conference was held, accord- 
 ing to appointment, in the Broken-back Church, Flu- 
 vanna County, Virginia. The question, " Shall we 
 administer the ordinances?" was again agitated, and 
 was answered in the affirmative. Some of the oldest 
 preachers were, therefore, set apart to administer the 
 sacraments. The troubles were such that we of the 
 North did not attend." l 
 
 Philip Gatch, who was an active participant in the 
 exciting scenes of this period, preserved in his manu- 
 script journal quite a full account of this action. In 
 it he records the following questions and answers : 
 
 " Ques. 14. What are our reasons for taking up the admin- 
 istration of the ordinances among us? 
 
 " Ans. Because the Episcopal establishment is now dis- 
 solved, and, therefore, in almost all our circuits the members 
 are without the ordinances we believe it to be our duty. 
 
 " Ques. 15. What preachers do approve of this step ? 
 
 "Ans. Isham Tatum, Charles Hopkins, Nelson Heed, 
 Keuben Ellis, P. Gatch, Thomas Morris, James Morris, James 
 Foster, John Major, Andrew Yeargan, Henry Willis, Francis 
 Poythress, John Signian, Leroy Cole, Carter Cole, James 
 O'Kelly, William Moore, Samuel Roe. 
 
 " Ques. 16. Is it proper to have a committee? 
 
 "Ans. Yes, and by the vote of the preachers. 
 
 " Ques. 17. Who are the committee ? 
 
 " Ans. P. Gatch, James Foster, L. Cole, and R. Ellis. 
 
 " Ques. 18. What powers do the preachers vest in the com- 
 mittee ? 
 
 " Ans. They do agree to observe all the resolutions of the 
 
 * Garret! son's Semi-centennial Sermon. 
 
144 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 said committee, so far as the said committee shall adhere to the 
 Scriptures. 
 
 " Ques. 19. What form of ordination shall be observed to 
 authorize 1 any preacher to administer? 
 
 " Ans. By that of a presbytery. 
 
 " Ques. 20. How shall the presbytery be appointed? 
 
 " Ans. By a majority of the preachers. 
 
 " Ques. 21. Who are the presbytery ? 
 
 "Ans. P. Gatch, R. Ellis, James Foster, and, in case of 
 necessity, Leroy Cole. 
 
 " Ques. 22. What power is vested in the presbytery by this 
 choice ? 
 
 " Ans. 1. To administer the ordinances themselves. 2. To 
 authorize any other preacher or preachers, approved of by 
 them, by the form of laying on of hands. 
 
 " Ques. 23. What is to be observed as touching the admin- 
 istration of the ordinances, and to whom shall they be admin- 
 istered ? 
 
 " Ans. To those who are under our care and discipline. 
 
 " Ques. 24. Shall we rebaptize any under our care ? 
 
 l( Ans. No. 
 
 " Ques. 25. What mode shall be adopted for the admin- 
 istration of baptism? 
 
 " Ans. Either sprinkling or plunging, as the parent or adult 
 shall choose. 
 
 " Ques. 26. What ceremony shall be used in the admin- 
 istration ? 
 
 " Ans. Let it be according to our Lord's command (Matt, 
 xxviii, 19), short and extempore. 
 
 "Ques. 27. Shall the sign of the cross be used? 
 
 " Ans. No. 
 
 " Ques. 28. Who shall receive the charge of the child, after 
 baptism, for its future instruction ? 
 
 "Ans. The parent or persons who have the care of the 
 child, with advice from the preacher. 
 
 " Ques. 29. What mode shall be adopted for the admin- 
 istration of the Lord's Supper? 
 
 "Ans. Kneeling is thought the most proper; but, in cases 
 of conscience, may be left to the choice of the communicant. 
 
AMERICAN CONFERENCES, 1778 TO 1781. 145 
 
 " Ques. 30. What ceremony shall be observed in this ordi- 
 nance ? 
 
 " Ans. After singing, praying, and exhortation, the preacher 
 delivers the bread, saying, 'The body of our Lord Jesus Christ/ 
 etc., after the Church order." 1 
 
 There are a Dumber of points in the action just 
 quoted that call for special attention. In the first 
 place it will be observed that this Conference does 
 not concur in the action of the Delaware meeting, in 
 recognizing Mr. Asbury as general assistant. There 
 can be no doubt that Mr. Waiters conveyed full in- 
 formation as to the doings of the preachers at Judge 
 White's, but the regular Conference at Fluvanna did 
 not even record Mr. Asbury's name, much less con- 
 cede to him any authority as Wesley's general assist- 
 ant. On the contrary, this Conference decided that 
 it was "proper to have a committee/ 7 and that the 
 committee should be elected " by the vote of the 
 preachers." Heretofore they had been governed by 
 Wesley's agent until they called Mr. Watters to the 
 chair, the previous year. Now being isolated from 
 Wesley, and, in some sense, left to govern themselves, 
 they commit the government, not to one man, but to 
 a committee of four men namely, Gatch, Foster, Cole, 
 and Ellis and at the same time they put limitations 
 on the powers vested in the committee, and reserve 
 to the Conference the right of judgment and power 
 of dissent, agreeing "to observe all the resolutions 
 of the said committee, so far as the said committee 
 shall adhere to the Scriptures." 
 
 1 Gatch 's Manuscript Journal; Leroy M. Lee's Life of Jesse Lee 
 I860, pp. 79-81. 
 
146 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 This was an early effort at Conference government 
 through a committee, and is, perhaps, an outgrowth 
 of the suggestion made in the preliminary meeting 
 of preachers in 1777, and a modification of Mr. Wes- 
 ley's plan of 1769. This did not imply any absolute 
 breaking away from Wesley and the Large Minutes, 
 but merely a temporary arrangement under circum- 
 stances which would not permit Wesley to govern 
 directly. 
 
 The sacramental matter, however, placed them in 
 a different attitude. They decided to ordain some of 
 their preachers, and they presented, in justification, the 
 fact that the Revolutionary War and the Declaration of 
 Independence had dissolved the Church of England in 
 the United States, and that nearly all their people were 
 without the privilege of the sacrament of the Lord's 
 Supper, and that there were scarcely any to baptize their 
 children. These preachers were de facto ministers of 
 the gospel, and the members of the Methodist socie- 
 ties regarded them as ministers dejure. The law of 
 necessity asserted itself, and these men, who were rec- 
 ognized as duly called to preach, and who had been 
 formally set apart from business pursuits to devote 
 their lives to the ministry, felt that, under the circum- 
 stances, being called to preach, they were entitled to 
 administer the sacraments. 
 
 As Lee puts it, " Many of our traveling preachers 
 in Virginia and North Carolina, seeing and feeling 
 the want of the instituted means of grace among our 
 societies (and there being but few Church ministers in 
 that part of the country, and most of them strangers 
 
AMERICAN CONFERENCES, 1778 TO 1781. 147 
 
 to heart-felt religion), concluded that if God had called 
 them to preach, he had called them also to administer 
 the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's Supper." l 
 Having discussed this point in " The Evolution of 
 Episcopacy and Organic Methodism," 2 we refer but 
 briefly to the reasons advanced in defense of the 
 action of the Conference. 
 
 They did not propose episcopal but presbyterial 
 ordination, and so they formed a presbytery, consisting 
 of Gatch, Ellis and Foster, and, "in case of necessity, 
 Leroy Cole," the same persons as constituted the com- 
 mittee ; four being named, probably, so that at least 
 three would take part in each ordination. The Con- 
 ference empowered this presbytery to "administer the 
 ordinances " and to ordain others. They were among 
 the oldest preachers, and therefore literally elders, 
 and now formally called presbyters by the Conference. 
 
 It will be noticed that the purpose was to provide 
 the sacraments for those under their own care and 
 discipline, and that liberality of view was expressed 
 as to the mode of baptism and the form of partaking 
 of the communion ; but the form of words to be em- 
 ployed were to be those of the Anglican service. 
 
 Lee tells us that " the committee thus chosen first 
 ordained themselves, and then proceeded to ordain and 
 set apart other preachers for the same purpose, that they 
 might administer the holy ordinances to the Church 
 of Christ. The preachers thus ordained, went forth 
 
 1 Jesse Lee, History of Methodists, 1810, p. 69. 
 
 2 The Evolution of Episcopacj r and Organic Methodism, by Rev. T. 
 B. Neely, Ph. D., D. D.; published, New York, Phillips aud Hunt ; Cin- 
 cinnati, Cranston and Stowe ; 12mo., pp. 448. 
 
148 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 preaching the gospel in their circuits as formerly, and 
 administered the sacraments wherever they went, pro- 
 vided the people were willing to partake with them." l 
 By this act the regular Conference certainly broke 
 away from Wesley's restrictions and the teachings of 
 the Large Minutes on this point, and, therefore, though 
 the Conference believed it was justified by the circum- 
 stances, there was now some ground for Asbury's alle- 
 gation that they were separatists. Asbury's Confer- 
 ence was a secession from the regular Conference, in 
 anticipation of a probable decision ; but the regular 
 Conference had in this one particular departed from 
 the wishes of Mr. Wesley. While they still consid- 
 ered themselves Methodists and in connection with 
 Mr. Wesley, they had practically formed a temporary 
 Presbyterian Church. The Flu van na Conference di- 
 rected that the next session be held at Manakiutown, 
 Va., on the 8th of May, 1780, so that now there were 
 really two Conferences, a Northern and a Southern, 
 which divided upon the sacramental question ; but the 
 Conference to be held in Virginia was the regular suc- 
 cessor of the legal Conference of 1779. It also rep- 
 resented a large majority of the preachers and people, 
 though Asbury's section might claim a closer ad- 
 herence to Wesley and his wishes. Strictly speaking, 
 the Conference held in Virginia was the seventh reg- 
 ular American Conference, while Asbury's Conference 
 was irregular, if not absolutely illegal, in every sense of 
 the term, whatever may have been the principles which 
 led to the call. As related to general American Meth- 
 
 i Jesse Lee, History of Methodists, p. 69. 
 
AMERICAN CONFKRKNCKS, 1778 TO 1781. 149 
 
 odism, it was, at least for the time being, a faction and 
 a revolt against the majority, even if its views were 
 correct. As it was, American Methodism was di- 
 vided. The Northern section refused to administer 
 the sacraments, and was governed by Asbury, whose 
 authority was absolute. The Southern section had 
 the sacraments, and was governed by a committee se- 
 lected by the Conference. The former might have 
 been called conservatives ; the latter, radicals or 
 progressives. 
 
 The time for the Conference of 1780 approaches, 
 and with it comes a re-discussion of the differences 
 between the two bodies. On the 1st of April, 1780, 
 Asbury makes this record : " I received a satisfactory 
 letter from William Moore ; he hopes a reconciliation 
 will take place in Virginia if healing measures are 
 adopted." 1 This was an olive-branch from the South; 
 for William Moore was a member of the Conference 
 which met at Fluvanna. 2 Asbury was still in Dela- 
 ware, but actively engaged. On the 12th and 14th 
 of April he notes that he is employed in preparing 
 his papers for Conference. He had become a citizen 
 of the State of Delaware, 3 and concludes that he may 
 venture out of the territory to which he had been 
 confined, so on the 20th he " set off for Baltimore." 
 When he reached Mr. Gough's, in Baltimore County, 
 he met William Glendenning, and observes that 
 "Brother Glendenning had his objections to make, 
 
 1 Asbury 's Journal, 1821, Vol. I, p. 277. 
 
 2 Minutes. 
 
 8 Asbury's Journal, 1821, Vol. I, p. 281. 
 
150 GOVKRNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 and pleaded some in favor of the Virginia brethren 
 who had made a division." l So he still puts the 
 burden on the " Virginia brethren," whereas they 
 met in the regular Conference, and his section of the 
 preachers did not attend the regular Conference, but 
 formed a Conference of their own, and so withdrew 
 from the connection with the regular Conference be- 
 fore it committed any overt act. From this point of 
 view Asbury's party made the division. They sep- 
 arated from the Conference, though the regular 
 American Conference departed from Wesley's instruc- 
 tions and from its original resolution of 1773. On 
 the 24th of April, Asbury " made a plan for th'e ap- 
 pointment of the preachers," " received three epis- 
 tles from the Jerseys, soliciting three or four 
 preachers," and the same day reached Baltimore. 2 
 The printed Minutes state that Asbury's Conference 
 convened in the city of Baltimore on the 24th of 
 April, 1780 ; but the 24th was Monday, 'and the Con- 
 ference had been appointed for "the last Tuesday in 
 April." 3 Further, Asbury enters in his journal, under 
 date of Tuesday, 25th : " Our Conference met in 
 peace and love." We must conclude, therefore, that 
 although the preachers may have reached Baltimore 
 on the 24th, they did not enter upon their business 
 until the 25th day of April. Lee calls this the eighth 
 Conference." 4 But in this he is inconsistent, for he 
 does not count the Delaware Conference of the pre- 
 
 i Asbury 's Journal, 1821, Vol. I, pp. 280. *ld. pp. 280,281. 
 
 Id. p, 238. 
 
 * Jesse Lee, History of Methodists, p. 70. 
 
AMERICAN CONFERENCES, 1778 TO 1781. 151 
 
 vious year as anything more than a preparatory Con- 
 ference called for convenience, which was the pro- 
 genitor of this Baltimore session, while he speaks 
 of the Conference of Fluvanna as " the Seventh 
 Conference." l 
 
 If the Fluvanna Conference was the regular Con- 
 ference, and the seventh in order, then the Confer- 
 ence by it regularly appointed would be its regular 
 successor, and be properly termed the eighth Confer- 
 ence, while the Conference at Baltimore was simply 
 the successor of an irregular meeting, which Lee 
 could not count as a Conference at all. 
 
 Nevertheless the Northern section has grown con- 
 siderably during the year, and gives promise of be- 
 coming the leading Conference. The year before, 
 Baltimore was counted in the lists of both Confer- 
 ences. This year it appears only in -Asbury's Con- 
 ference. According to the printed Minutes, the same 
 is true of Frederick. The same is true of the 
 preachers at both places, with the exception that 
 William Adams, who, on Asbury's list of 1779, was 
 assigned to Baltimore, this year appears in the Vir- 
 ginia list, while Philip Adams appears to have left 
 the latter Conference and connected himself with 
 Asbury's. Berkley was the previous year only on 
 the Southern list; this year the charge, as well as its 
 preachers John Tunnell and John Hagerty have 
 come to the Northern Conference. In 1779, at Asbury's 
 Conference, seven charges, including Baltimore and 
 Frederick, were named; while at the regular Confer- 
 
 i Jesse Lee, History of Methodists, p. 67. 
 
152 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 ence held at Fluvanna there were fourteen circuits, 
 including the two places claimed in common. In 1780, 
 Asbury gained two circuits ; so that, counting New Jer- 
 sey and Philadelphia as two, for they had been divided, 
 he now had ten charges; while the Southern Confer- 
 ence, according to the printed Minutes, had dropped to 
 ten. So the Minutes show that this year Asbury 
 gave twenty-two men appointments, while the South- 
 ern Conference assigned twenty. There may be some 
 qualifying facts on the one side or the other, but it 
 is manifest that Asbury was getting a stronger hold. 
 The fact that he was the senior preacher, and that he 
 had been sent to America by Wesley, had very much 
 to do with this; but something must be attributed to 
 the cautious spirit of the Northern preachers, and a 
 doubt as to the propriety of administering the sacra- 
 ments without Wesley's consent. 
 
 The first question that was asked was: "What 
 preachers do now agree to sit in Conference on the 
 original plan as Methodists?" The "original plan" 
 was expressed in the resolution of the first Confer- 
 ence, which was held in 1773: " Every preacher who 
 acts in connection with Mr. Wesley and the brethren 
 who labor in America, is strictly to avoid adminis- 
 tering the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's 
 Supper." 
 
 Thus the seceding body, which had been ir- 
 regularly called and had broken away from the 
 majority of the previous year, placed itself formally 
 upon the basis of the first Conference, claiming that 
 
AMERICAN CONFERENCES, 1778 TO 1781. 153 
 
 to be the only Methodistic course, and practically de- 
 claring that the preachers who did not agree with 
 them were not Methodists. The printed Minutes 
 give the names of twenty-four preachers as respond- 
 ing to this question in the affirmative. 
 
 The Virginia preachers believed that their course 
 was necessitated by existing conditions, but they did 
 not desire a division in American Methodism. To 
 help prevent a permanent division, two of their num- 
 ber Philip Gatch and Reuben Ellis appeared at 
 Asbury 's Conference, and endeavored "to prevent a 
 total disunion;" 1 but they found little encouragement 
 and no sympathy. They complained that the North- 
 ern brethren dealt "hardly with them," and that 
 "there was little appearance of anything but an entire 
 separation." To this charge, however, they made one 
 exception, declaring that Mr. Waiters " was the only 
 one that treated them with affection and tenderness." 
 The fact is that Asbury and his followers looked upon 
 the others as having departed from the faith and 
 practice of the Wesleyan Methodists, and that in this 
 they were not to be tolerated. Asbury, under date 
 of " Tuesday, 25th," gives the following brief account 
 of his Conference : 
 
 "We settled all our Northern stations; then we 
 began in much debate about the letter sent from Vir- 
 ginia. We first concluded to renounce them. Then I 
 offered conditions of union : 
 
 " I. That they should ordain no more. 
 
 Life of Wm. Walters, pp. 79-81. 
 
 11 
 
154 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 " II. That they should come no further than Han- 
 over Circuit. 
 
 " III. That we would have our delegates in their 
 Conference. 
 
 " IV. That they should not presume to admin- 
 ister the ordinances where there is a decent Episcopal 
 minister. 
 
 " V. To have a Union Conference. 
 
 " These would not do, as we found upon long de- 
 bate, and we came back to our determinations; al- 
 though it was like death to think of parting. At 
 last a thought struck my mind, to propose a suspen- 
 sion of the ordinances for one year, and so cancel all 
 our grievances and be one. It was agreed on both 
 sides; and Philip Gatch and Reuben Ellis, that had 
 been very stiff, came into it, and thought it would 
 do." On the 27th he writes: "Joseph Cromwell 
 and Freeborn Garrettson spoke. At the recommend- 
 ation of the Conference, William Watters, too. 
 These three volunteered, and were to be my spokes- 
 men. Myself and Brother Garrettson are going to 
 the Virginia Conference to bring about peace and 
 union." 1 
 
 The Minutes state that Asbury, Garrettson, and 
 Watters were appointed to visit the Conference in 
 Virginia. 
 
 At this point we should quote the whole of the 
 action of the Conference on the sacramental question 
 and the division, as given in the printed Minutes. It 
 
 i Asbury 's Journal, 1821, Vol. I, p. 281. 
 
AMERICAN CONFERENCES, 1778 TO 1781. 155 
 
 is continued in the following questions and an- 
 swers : 
 
 " Ques. 12. Shall we continue in close connection with 
 the Church, and press our people to a closer communion 
 with her? 
 
 "Arts. Yes. 
 
 " Ques. 13. Will this Conference grant the privilege to all 
 the friendly clergy of the Church of England, at the request 
 or desire of the people, to preach or administer the ordinances 
 in our preaching-houses or chapels ? 
 
 "Aru. Yes. 
 
 " Ques. 20. Does this whole Conference disapprove the 
 step our brethren have taken in Virginia ? 
 
 "Am. Yes. 
 
 " Ques. 21 . Do we look upon them no longer as Meth- 
 odists in connection with Mr. Wesley and us till they come 
 back? 
 
 " Ans. Agreed. 
 
 "Ques. .22. Shall Brothers Asbury, Garrettson, and Watters 
 attend the Virginia Conference, and inform them of our pro- 
 ceedings in this, and receive their answer? 
 
 "Ans. Yes. 
 
 " Ques. 26. What must be the conditions of our union 
 with our Virginia brethren ? 
 
 "Ans. To suspend all their administrations for one year, 
 and all meet together in Baltimore." 
 
 Thus it will be seen that the seceding body as- 
 sumes practically to excommunicate the members of 
 the regular Conference. 
 
 Asbury's followers not only disapprove of the ac- 
 tion of the majority in the legal Conference of the 
 previous year, but also declare they will not look 
 upon those who remained in the regular Confer- 
 ence "as Methodists in connection with Mr. Wesley" 
 
156 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 and themselves, "till they come back;" and the ulti- 
 matum was that they should suspend "their administra- 
 tions for one year, and all meet together in Baltimore." 
 In other words, it was demanded that those who had not 
 withdrawn from the regular Conference should come 
 to the seceders and accept their terms. Not only did 
 Asbury's Conference do that, but it also emphasized 
 the idea of " closer communion '* with the Church of 
 England, and of taking the sacraments from her 
 clergy, notwithstanding the fact that the English 
 State Church had been badly shattered, and that very 
 few of its clergy were left in the country. 1 
 
 This covers the action of the Northern Confer- 
 ence upon this particular point; but there were other 
 questions considered by this body. Thus the proper 
 settlement and care of the chapel property brought 
 out the following question and answer : 
 
 " Ques. 7. Ought not all the assistants to see to the settling 
 of all the preaching-houses by trustees, and order the said 
 trustees to meet once in half a year, and keep a register of 
 their proceedings; if there are any vacancies, choose new trus- 
 tees for the better security of the houses; and let all the 
 deeds be drawn, in substance, after that in the printed 
 Minutes? 
 
 "Ana. Yes." 
 
 Or as Mr. Lee states it: "That all the assistants 
 should see to the settling of all our meeting-houses 
 by trustees, and for regular deeds to be taken for the 
 houses." 2 
 
 See Evolution of Episcopacy and Organic Methodism, pp. 149-157, 
 2 Jesse Lee, History of Methodists, p. 71. 
 
AMERICAN CONFERENCES, 1778 TO 1781. 157 
 
 It was decided that a all the traveling preachers" 
 should "take a license from every Conference, im- 
 porting that they are assistants or helpers in connec- 
 tion with us ;" which appears to mean Asbury's Con- 
 ference, and the certificate was to bear the signature 
 of Mr. Asbury. As to the local preachers and ex- 
 horters, it was strictly enjoined " that no one presume 
 to speak in public without taking a note every quarter 
 (if required)/ 7 and "that they be examined by the 
 assistant with respect to his life, his qualification, and 
 reception." 
 
 The following question and answer, given at this 
 Conference, might not be so popular or supposed to 
 be necessary to-day : 
 
 " Ques. 11. Ought not all our preachers to make conscience 
 of rising at four, and, if not, yet at five (is it not a shame for 
 a preacher to be in bed till six in the morning) ? 
 
 " Ans. Undoubtedly they ought." 
 
 It was decided that the wives of married preach- 
 ers should "receive an equivalent with their hus- 
 bands in quarterage, if they stand in need." It was 
 declared that "our preachers, if possible," should 
 " speak to every person, one by one, in the families 
 where they lodge, before prayer, if time will permit, 
 or give a family exhortation after reading a chapter." 
 
 The Conference took a stand upon the temper- 
 ance question, and asked : 
 
 " Ques. 23. Do we disapprove of the practice of distilling 
 grain into liquor? Shall we disown our friends who will not 
 renounce the practice? 
 
 "Ans. Yes." 
 
158 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 On the question of slavery this Northern Confer- 
 ence, which extended into Maryland and other slave 
 territory, entered its protest, " anticipating its abo- 
 lition in Massachusetts by three years, in Rhode 
 Island and Connecticut by four years; the thesis of 
 Clarkson before the University of Cambridge, by 
 five years; and the Ordinance of Congress against it 
 in the Northwestern Territory, by seven years." 1 
 
 The action appears in these interrogatories and 
 replies : 
 
 " Ques. 16. Ought not this Conference to require those trav- 
 eling preachers who hold slaves, to give promises to set them 
 free? 
 
 " Ans. Yes. 
 
 " Ques. 17. Does this Conference acknowledge that slavery 
 is contrary to the laws of God, man, and nature, and hurtful 
 to society, contrary to the dictates of conscience and pure re- 
 ligion, and doing that which we would not others should 
 do to us and ours ? Do we pass our disapprobation on all 
 our friends who keep slaves, and advise their freedom ? 
 
 " Ans. Yes." 
 
 The following question and answer appear to have 
 been something of a concession to existing con- 
 ditions : 
 
 " Ques. 25. Ought not the assistant to meet the colored 
 people himself, and appoint as helpers in his absence proper 
 white persons, and not suffer them to stay late and meet by 
 themselves ? 
 
 "Ans. Yes." 
 
 This probably gave the preachers an opportunity 
 to preach to the slaves without exciting the suspicion 
 of their owners, who even at that day did not know 
 
 iA. Stevens, History of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 1865, 
 Vol. II, p. 78. 
 
AMERICAN CONFERENCES, 1778 TO 1781. 159 
 
 what schemes might be resorted to by the slaves for 
 the purpose of gaining their freedom. The Confer- 
 ence recommended that the quarterly meetings " be 
 held on Saturdays and Sundays, when convenient," 
 and that a the Friday following every quarter-day 
 be appointed as a day of fasting." Lee mentions 
 that in the early days " it was customary to have the 
 quarterly meeting on Tuesday, and to preach, settle 
 their business, and hold a love-feast, and sometimes a 
 watch-night. After a while it became a custom, in 
 country places, for the quarterly meeting to continue 
 for two days together. After further trial, it was 
 thought best to have the quarterly meetings on Sat- 
 urday and Sunday, which is now the constant practice 
 in most places. One weighty reason for this plan was 
 that many of the slaves could not attend these meet- 
 ings except on the Lord's-day; another reason was 
 that many of the wealthy people would come to hear 
 us on the Sabbath, at such meetings, who would not 
 be at the trouble of coming to meeting on any 
 other day ; and, lastly, many of the poor people 
 especially those of our own society could not spare 
 time or procure horses to come to such meetings, 
 unless they were on the Sabbath." * 
 
 One of the questions called out one of the most 
 important decisions of the Conference. Mr. Asbury 
 was then their absolute head, but he might die, or 
 he might not be able to attend the Conference session. 
 Provision, therefore, was made for this possibility. 
 
 > Jessa Lee, History of Methodists, IHlO.p. 42. 
 
160 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 " Ques. 24. What shall the Conference do in case of Brother 
 Asbury's death or absence ? 
 
 " Ans. Meet once a year, and act according to the Min- 
 utes." * 
 
 This provided for the perpetuity of Asbury's 
 Conference, with the agreement that they would ad- 
 here to the " Large Minutes " as their written law ; 
 so that, even if Asbury was taken away, the North- 
 ern Conference would not blend with the Southern 
 if, in their judgment, it implied an act contrary to 
 the " Minutes." . 
 
 The Conference at Baltimore has ended, and our 
 minds turn to the eighth regular Conference, which was 
 to meet in Virginia. On the 1st of May Asbury writes 
 in his journal : " I am going to Virginia." On the 4th 
 he says : " Prepared some papers for Virginia Confer- 
 ence. I go with a heavy heart, and fear the violence of 
 a party of positive men" a rather peculiar remark from 
 one of the most positive of men. On the 5th Asbury 
 came to the home of a Mr. Arnold, and he says : " We 
 found the plague was begun ; the good man Arnold 
 was warm for the ordinances." On the 7th he 
 remarks: "On entering into Virginia, I have pre- 
 pared some papers for the Conference, and expect 
 trouble." On Monday, the 8th, he says: "We rode 
 to Granger's, fifteen miles; stopped, and fed our 
 horses. These people are full of the ordinances. 
 We talked and prayed with them, then rode on to 
 the Manakintown ferry, much fatigued with the 
 ride ; went to friend Smith's, where all the preachers 
 
 i Printed Minutes, 1773-1813, pp. 23-28. 
 
AMERICAN CONFERENCES, 1778 TO 1781. 161 
 
 were met. I conducted myself with cheerful free- 
 dom, but found there was a separation in heart and 
 practice. I spoke with my countryman, John Dickins, 
 and found him opposed to our continuance in union 
 with the Episcopal Church. Brothers Watters and Gar- 
 rettson tried their men, and found them inflexible." l 
 So it seems that the work had been systematized, and 
 each of the three was to see and endeavor to influence 
 particular parties ; but the private attempt resulted in 
 failure. This is not surprising, nor is the fact as- 
 tonishing that the first appeal in the Conference 
 was doomed to disappointment. The Virginia Con- 
 ference was the regular Conference in order of 
 succession, and this particular session had been 
 ordered by a large majority of the American min- 
 isters. Its members had strong convictions, and be- 
 lieved that their course was justified by the law of 
 necessity and the needs of the people to whom they 
 ministered. In its membership we find John Dick- 
 ins, whose fame lives to this day. Born in London 
 in 1746, and educated partly in London and partly at 
 the famous Eton College, he came to America some 
 time before the Revolutionary War. He joined 
 the Methodists in America in 1774, and became a 
 regular preacher in 1777. This cultured man, with 
 his knowledge of Latin, Greek, and mathematics, 
 as well as other branches of the learning of that day, 
 was a great intellectual force among the American 
 Methodists; and, with his broad views, did very 
 much to expand the work and enlarge the influence 
 
 iAsbury's Journal, 1821, pp. 282, 283. 
 
162 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 of Methodism in the new nation. It was this man 
 who, a little later in this very year, framed, a sub- 
 scription paper for a seminary on the plan of Wes- 
 ley's Kingswood School, thus starting the first pro- 
 ject of a literary institution among the American 
 Methodists; and to this classical scholar is conceded 
 the honor of founding, a few years later, the great 
 Methodist Book Concern. 
 
 About a month after this Conference, Asbury, under 
 date of Sunday, June 18, 1780, mentions meeting John 
 Dickins in North Carolina, and says : " Brother Dick- 
 ins spoke on charity very sensibly, but his voice is 
 gone ; he reasons too much ; is a man of great piety, 
 great skill in learning, drinks in Greek and Latin 
 swiftly; yet prays much, and walks close with God. 
 He is a gloomy countryman of mine, and very diffi- 
 dent of himself." The next day he writes: "Brother 
 Dickins drew the subscription for a Kingswood 
 School in America; this was what came out a college 
 in the subscription printed by Dr. Coke." 1 This 
 was one of the leading preachers in the Virginia 
 Conference with whom Asbury and .his companions 
 had to deal. 
 
 Then there was Reuben Ellis, whom the Confer- 
 ence Minutes, after his death in 1796, pronounced 
 a man of "very sure and Solid parts, both as a 
 counselor and guide; in his preaching weighty and 
 powerful ; a man of simplicity and godly sincerity ; " 
 and expressed "a doubt whether there be one left in 
 
 i Asbury *s Journal, 1821, p. 291. 
 
AMERICAN CONFERENCES, 1778 TO 1781. 163 
 
 all the connection of higher, if of equal, standing, 
 piety, and usefulness." 
 
 Another was James O'Kelly, one of the strongest 
 characters in early Methodism. Lee says : " The most 
 influential preachers in that separation in favor of the 
 ordinances were Philip Gatch, John Dickins, and 
 James O'Kelly. These men," he says, " were much 
 respected for their usefulness in the ministry." 1 But 
 besides these there were other men of note, of whom 
 we can not make particular mention. 
 
 To come to such a Conference with a demand 
 which was the next thing to an unconditional sur- 
 render, and expect an easy task, was absurd, and, as 
 we will see, the mission was beset with many diffi- 
 culties. 
 
 Unfortunately the data in regard to the proceed- 
 ings of this Conference session are scant, excepting 
 that which comes from Asbury's side of the question. 
 However, there is no reason for doubting the accuracy 
 of the statements which come to us from this source ; 
 but it would be interesting to have the story from the 
 other side for purposes of comparison. 
 
 One of Asbury's companions, Freeborn Garrettson, 
 gives us in his Autobiography, written about 1790, 
 a brief account of this affair in the following language: 
 "The Methodists being only a society, which were 
 mostly united (with regard to communion) to the 
 Church of England ; and her ministers (especially in 
 Virginia and Carolina) in the time of the war were 
 
 * Jesse Lee, History of Methodists, p. 73. 
 
164 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 dispersed, so that a large body of people, under the 
 name of Methodists, were in a great measure destitute 
 of the ordinances of the Lord's house. In this case 
 what was to be done? Our dear Virginia brethren 
 thought it expedient to form themselves into a Church, 
 and have the ordinances among them, which they did 
 in the year 1779. But it was contrary to the minds 
 of the preachers to the North. 
 
 "In April, 1780, we held a Conference in Balti- 
 more, at which Brother F. A. [Francis Asbury], 
 Brother W. W. [William Waiters], and myself thought 
 proper to visit our brethren at the South ; and after a 
 tedious journey of several hundred miles, we arrived 
 safe in Manakintown, where we found the brethren in 
 Conference, fully persuaded in their minds that the 
 Lord required us to be a separate Church. We for 
 a considerable time conferred together, and much of 
 the divine presence was among us. On both sides it 
 was painful to part. This the great Governor of the 
 Church would not permit, for when the help of man 
 failed he interposed his omnipotent arm and convinced 
 our brethren that they ought at least to accede to a sus- 
 pension of the ordinances for one year, till the founder 
 of our society, Mr. John Wesley, could be consulted." ] 
 
 It thus appears that Mr. Garrettson, and probably 
 many others, understood that the ministers in the 
 Virginia Conference had formed themselves into a 
 Church, and that, after a year's experience in adminis- 
 tering the sacraments, they were still "fully persuaded 
 
 1 Freeborn Qarrettson's Autobiography, pp. 161, 102. 
 
AMERICAN CONFERENCES, 1778 TO 1781. 165 
 
 in their minds that the Lord required" them "to be a 
 separate Church." 
 
 In this hour of earnest solicitation on the one side, 
 and determined resistance on the other, a sort of medi- 
 ator appeared in the person of Edward Dromgoole. 
 Mr. Dromgoole was born in Sligo, Ireland, about 
 1751. His peculiar name, according to his grandson, 
 was derived from Drom, a mountain, and Goole, a 
 clan, and, meaning a mountain clan, has been traced 
 back through hundreds of years of Irish history to 
 its early origin among the clans of Finland. 1 Mr. 
 Dromgoole was a Roman Catholic until, when ap- 
 proaching manhood, he renounced popery and became 
 a Methodist. In May, 1770, he sailed for America, 
 and, after arriving in Baltimore the following August, 
 lie settled at Frederick, Maryland. Having a letter 
 for Robert Strawbridge, his fellow-countryman, 2 he 
 heard him preach, and thus came in contact with the 
 man who had so much to do in bringing on the sac- 
 ramental controversy. He began to preach in 1773, 
 and in 1774 he was sent to the Baltimore Circuit as 
 Shadford's colleague. His grandson, Edward Drom- 
 goole, Esq., of Brunswick County, Va., says that 
 "as soon as the war broke out he took the oath of 
 allegiance to his adopted country, and carefully pre- 
 served the certificate thereof as a testimonial of his 
 fidelity to the American cause." 3 
 
 ' John Atkinson, D. D., Centennial History of American Meth- 
 odism, New York, 1884, p. 377. 
 
 a J. Lednum, History of Methodism in America, Philadelphia, 
 1859, p. 133. 
 
 3 J. Atkinson, D. D., Centennial History of American Methodism, 
 p. 378. 
 
166 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 Mr. Dromgoole's name appears at irregular inter- 
 vals in the Minutes, evidently from the fact that he 
 took appointments irregularly because he married in 
 1777, and in that primitive time it was very difficult 
 for a married man to do the full work of an itinerant 
 preacher, moving from place to place at the pleasure 
 of the appointing power. In consequence of this, 
 many of the early Methodist preachers, when they 
 married, either left the itinerancy or entered the min- 
 istry of some other denomination. 
 
 Mr. Asbury, under date of June 8, 1780, says: 
 " Edward Dromgoole is a good preacher, but en- 
 tangled with a family. We spoke of a plan for build- 
 ing houses in every circuit for preachers' wives, and the 
 society to supply their families with bread and meat, so 
 the preachers should travel from place to place as when 
 single; for unless something of the kind be done 
 we shall have no preachers but young ones in a few 
 years. They will marry and stop." 1 Nevertheless 
 Dromgoole remained an influential preacher, and ap- 
 pears from time to time in the Conferences, and for a 
 number of years as an " assistant." One who heard 
 him preach in North Carolina when he was past mid- 
 dle age remarks that "his voice, his countenance, 
 and his gestures all gave a power to his eloquence, 
 which is rarely equaled even at this day. The copi- 
 ous flow of tears and the awful peals of his voice 
 showed that the preacher's whole soul was thrown 
 into the subject, and it produced the most thrilling 
 effect that I had ever witnessed. There was not a 
 
 i Asbury's Journal, 1821, Vol. I., p. 290. 
 
AMERICAN CONFERENCES, 1778 TO 1781. 167 
 
 dry eye among the hundreds who listened to him on 
 that occasion." 1 Even when he had become an oc- 
 togenarian he retained his power as a preacher, and 
 there is a record of his preaching as late as 1831 at a 
 camp-meeting in Virginia, and one who heard him 
 on that occasion says : " Take him all in all, I shall 
 never see his like again." 2 
 
 This was the man who came to the aid of Asbury 
 and his fellow-commissioners at the Virginia Confer- 
 ence of 1780. It will be remembered on May 3-, 1779, 
 just after his Conference at Judge White's, that 
 Asbury wrote to Edward Dromgoole, urging him, 
 " if possible, to prevent a separation among the 
 preachers in the South." On Sunday, July 2, 1780, 
 after the Conference at Manakintown, he writes: 
 "Edward Dromgoole is hearty in good old Meth- 
 odism ; we have had great union ; I hope he will 
 check the spirit of some 'of the divisive men." 3 This 
 man, who had spent his ministerial life in the South, 
 doubtless had much to do in bringing about a re- 
 union between the two Conferences. He took his 
 stand with Asbury, and made their cause his. 
 
 Asbury tells the story. He says that on Tuesday, 
 May 9, 1780, 
 
 " The Conference was called. Brothers Walters, Garrettson, 
 and myself stood back ; and being afterward joined by Brother 
 Dromgoole, we were desired to come in, and I was permitted 
 to speak. I read Wesley's thoughts against a separation, 
 showed my private letters of instructions from Mr. Wesley, 
 
 1 Bennett's Methodism in Virginia. 
 
 *.The Methodist Protestant, September 2, 1831. 
 
 Asbury's Journal, 1821, Vol. I, p. 294. 
 
168 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 set before them the sentiments of the Delaware and Balti- 
 more Conferences, 1 read our epistles, and read my letter to 
 Brother Gatch, and Dickins's letter in answer. After some 
 time spent in tins way, it was proposed to me, if I would get 
 the circuits supplied, they would desist; but that I could 
 not do. 
 
 " We went to preaching ; I spoke on Ruth ii, 4, 2 and spoke 
 as though nothing had been the matter among the preachers or 
 people ; and we were greatly pleased and comforted ; there 
 was some moving among the people. 
 
 "In the afternoon we met. The preachers appeared to me 
 to be farther off. There had been, I thought, some talking out of 
 doors. When we Asbnry, Garrettson, Watters, and Dromgoole 
 could not come to a conclusion with them, we withdrew, and 
 left them to deliberate on the conditions I offered, which was 
 to suspend the measures they had taken for one year. After 
 an hour's conference, we were called to receive their answer, 
 which was that they could not submit to the terms of union. 
 I then prepared to leave the house to go to a near neighbor's to 
 lodge under the heaviest cloud I ever felt in America. 
 what I felt! Nor I alone, but the agents on both sides! They 
 wept like children, but kept their opinions." 
 
 In his journal for the next day he says : 
 
 " I returned to take leave of Conference and to go off im- 
 mediately to the North ; but found they were brought to an 
 agreement while I had been praying, as with a broken heart, 
 
 in the house we went to lodge at, and Brothers Watters 
 
 and Garrettson had been praying up-stairs, where the Confer- 
 ence sat. We heard what they had to say. Surely the hand of 
 God has been greatly seen in all this. There might have been 
 twenty promising preachers and three thousand people 3 seriously 
 affected by this separation ; but the Lord would not suffer this. 
 We then had preaching by Brother Watters on ' Come thou 
 with us, and we will do thee good.' Afterward we had a love- 
 
 1 The Conferences of the Northern preachers in 1779 and 1780. 
 
 s"And behold, Boaz came 'from Bethlehem, and said unto the reap- 
 ers, The Lord be with you. And they answered him, The Lord bless 
 thee." 
 
 8 These estimates are conjectural and inaccurate. 
 
AMERICAN CONFERENCES, 1778 TO 1781. 1G9 
 
 feast; preachers and people wept, prayed, and talked, so that 
 the spirit of dissension was powerfully weakened, and I hoped 
 it would never take place again." * 
 
 Now we see more distinctly Asbury's meaning in 
 using the word separation as applied to the Virginia 
 Conference. He read Mr. Wesley's " Reasons Against 
 a Separation from the Church of England ;" 2 but this 
 was written in 1758, twenty-two years before, in view 
 of conditions then existing in England, and about 
 eight years prior to the introduction of Wesleyan 
 Methodism into America. The conditions in America, 
 as Mr. Wesley afterward admitted, were very different. 
 Asbury considered that the ordinary Methodist 
 preacher who administered the ordinances had sep- 
 arated, and that the people who received the sacra- 
 ments from them likewise separated from the English 
 State Church, to which they had been recommended 
 to go for baptism and the Lord's Supper. That was 
 Asbury's point of view ; but the fact remains that 
 Asbury and his followers separated from the regular 
 Conference before it decided to depart from the usual 
 custom, and without meeting in its session, and therein 
 endeavoring to prevent the action which they deplored. 
 When we consider these facts and also the pressing 
 demand for the sacraments, we are surprised that 
 the Southern ministers were as gentle and yielded so 
 quickly, even for the purpose of promoting fraternal 
 union with those to the North. It speaks well for 
 their conciliatory spirit, when it is remembered that 
 
 1 Asbury's Journnl, 1821, p. 283. 
 
 2 Wesley's Works, Amer. Ed., 1853, pp. 293-298. 
 
 12 
 
170 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 they in fact yielded almost everything, while the 
 Northern men practically yielded nothing. The 
 Southern ministers agreed to suspend the ordinances 
 for one year; the Northern preachers had none to 
 suspend. They also agreed to meet in Baltimore the 
 next year, but the Northern preachers did not pro- 
 pose to go South and meet with their brethren of 
 that section. The unyielding were in the North ; 
 those who made the concessions were of the South. 
 
 Before leaving this momentous matter, we must 
 cite the testimony of the Rev. William Watters, one 
 of the three commissioners from the North. It was 
 he who went uninvited to the Conference of 1779, at 
 Judge White's, to urge Asbury to be present at the 
 Fluvanna Conference, and it was he who was charged 
 with a message from Asbury and his adherents to the 
 regular Conference in Virginia. He was, therefore, 
 a persona grata 1 with both parties, and gives us the best 
 account of his mission and its results. He says that 
 Philip Gatch and Ecu ben Ellis, 
 
 "Both thought their Baltimore brethren were hard with 
 them, and there was little appearance of anything but an 
 entire separation. They complained that I was the only one 
 who did not join them, that treated them with affection and 
 tenderness. I awfully feared our visit would be of little con- 
 sequence, yet I willingly went down in the name of God, 
 hoping against hope. We found our brethren as loving and 
 as full of zeal as ever, and as determined on persevering in 
 their newly adopted mode ; for to all their former arguments 
 they now added (what with many was infinitely stronger than 
 all other arguments in the world) that the Lord approbated 
 
 *An agreeable or acceptable person, one in favor. 
 
AMERICAN CONFERENCES, 1778 TO 1781. 171 
 
 and greatly blessed his own ordinances, by them administered 
 the past year. We had a great deal of loving conversation, 
 with many tears ; but I saw no bitterness, no shyness, no 
 judging each other. We wept and prayed and sobbed, but 
 neither would agree to the other's terms. In the meantime, 
 I was requested to preach at twelve o'clock. As I had many 
 preachers and professors to hear me, I spoke from the words 
 of Moses to his father-in-law : ' We are journeying unto the 
 place of which the Lord said, I will give it to you ; come 
 thou with us, and we will do thee good ; for the Lord hath 
 spoken good concerning Israel.' After waiting two days, and 
 all hopes of an accommodation failing, we had fixed on start- 
 ing back early in the morning ; but late in the evening it was 
 proposed by one of their own party in Conference (none of 
 the others being present) that there should be a suspension 
 of the ordinances for the present year, and that our circum- 
 stances should be laid before Mr. Wesley, and his advice 
 solicited; also that Mr. Asbury should be requested to ride 
 through the different circuits, and superintend the work at 
 large. The proposal in a few minutes took with all but a few. 
 In the morning, instead of coming off in despair, we were in- 
 vited to take our seats again in the Conference, where, with 
 great rejoicings and praises to God, we, on both sides, heartily 
 agreed to the accommodation. I could not but say, It is of the 
 Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes. I knew of 
 nothing upon earth that could have given me more real con- 
 solation; and I could not but be heartily thankful for the 
 stand I had taken, and the part I had acted through the 
 whole contest. I had, by several leading characters on both 
 sides, been suspected of leaning to the opposite ; could all 
 have agreed to the administration of the ordinances, I should 
 have had no objection ; but until that was the case, I could 
 not think ourselves ripe for so great a change. We have had 
 every reason to believe that everything would end well ; that 
 the evils which had actually attended our partial division 
 would make us more cautious how we should entertain one 
 thought of taking a step that might have the least tendency 
 to so great an evil." 1 
 
 i Life of Rev. William Waiters, p. 79. 
 
172 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 Wonderful, indeed, is it that the strong men of 
 this Conference, notwithstanding their conviction that 
 their course had been right, should give up the very 
 point for which they had battled. More wonderful 
 was it that they consented to go to a Conference seat 
 in the territory occupied by the Northern preachers ; 
 and most wonderful was it that they would request 
 Mr. Asbury " to superintend the work at large," for 
 this was practically accepting and extending his au- 
 thority in the South. Surely it would be unfair to 
 infer that those who made so many concessions for 
 the sake of union were bitter or troublesome spirits. 
 
 Freeborn Garrettson, who knew them well, and 
 who was opposed to their course, says: 
 
 " I do not think that Drew, in his Life of Coke, has, in 
 several particulars, done justice to our American brethren. 
 He represents them as very refractory, and supposes that 
 Asbury had much trouble with them; .whereas, the fact is, 
 they went forth in the power of the Spirit, disseminating di- 
 vine truth, and suffering much persecution and many priva- 
 tions, while Asbury had a quiet retreat at Judge White's, 
 and that during the hottest time of our conflict. 1 It is true, 
 our Southern brethren, to satisfy the people and their own 
 consciences, did administer the ordinances in what they 
 thought an extreme case. The leading members of the Flu- 
 vanna Conference were Dickins, Gatch, Yeargan, Poythress, 
 Ellis, Tatum, etc., all faithful, pious, zealous men of God, who 
 would have done credit to any religious connection. I ad- 
 mired their goodness in cordially agreeing to consult Wesley, 
 and to follow his judgment, and, till they should receive his 
 advice, to suspend the administration of the ordinances. If I 
 am prolix on this subject, it is to show that our Virginia 
 brethren were undeservedly accused of schism." * 
 
 iThe War of the Re volution. 
 
 F. Garrettson's Semi-centennial Sermon. 
 
AMERICAN CONFERENCES, 1778 TO 1781. 173 
 
 Mr. Garrettson gives a just statement as to the 
 spirit of the Southern preachers, but possibly misin- 
 terprets Mr. Drew, who really appears to side with 
 the Southern party and to put considerable blame upon 
 Mr. Asbury. Thus he remarks, that when a request 
 for the sacraments was made, Asbury " absolutely re- 
 fused to give either preachers or people any redress/' 
 Then he observes that the Southern preachers " went 
 forth in the name of God, and administered the sac- 
 raments to all whom they judged proper to receive 
 them. The clamor of the people immediately sub- 
 sided. All were satisfied with the enjoyment of their 
 returning privileges, and prosperity became the com- 
 panion of peace. Mr. Asbury, in the meanwhile, 
 who had not yet shaken oif the rusty fetters of ( apos- 
 tolical succession/ found himself comparatively de- 
 serted by those whose respect for him still remained 
 undiminished. Against the illegality of their pro- 
 ceedings he bore a public testimony, denying the 
 authority by which the preachers acted, and declaring 
 the ordination to which they had given existence in- 
 valid. With individuals his arguments had weight, 
 and many hesitated to follow the measures they had 
 adopted. In this manner he proceeded until he had 
 proselyted some, had silenced others, and had shaken 
 the faith of all ; so that at a subsequent Conference 
 he found means to procure a vote which declared the 
 former ordination unscriptural. The breach was 
 soon healed ; a general reconciliation took place, and 
 Mr. Asbury once more resumed the full exercise of 
 
174 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 that authority of which he had, for a season, been 
 partially deprived." * 
 
 Mr. Drew, on account of his intimacy with Dr. 
 Coke, is good authority as to Coke in America and 
 elsewhere; but, residing, as he did, in England, he is 
 not the best authority as to events in America some 
 years before Coke came to this country. There is no 
 evidence, for example, to prove that the Virginia 
 Conference ever declared by vote, or in any other 
 way, that their ordination was unscriptural. 
 
 Whatever means were used, whether public or 
 private, it was now evident that Asbury had tri- 
 umphed, and Lee says: "By his being often with 
 the preachers and among the people in the South the 
 divisive spirit died away, and the preachers and people 
 by degrees became more reconciled to the old plan 
 and to the old preachers, and peace and harmony 
 were once more established throughout the con- 
 nection." 2 
 
 It is a little singular that the printed Minutes 
 of 1780 give none of the transactions of that, which 
 certainly was the eighth regular Conference at which 
 these important matters were decided. All that ap- 
 pears are two questions, as to where the Southern 
 preachers are stationed and what numbers there were 
 in the societies, and these are added as questions 
 twenty-seven and twenty-eight to the Minutes of As- 
 
 i Samuel Drew, Life of Rev. Thomas Coke, LL.D., Amer. Ed., 1847, 
 pp. 69, 70. 
 
 Jesse Lee, History of Methodists, 1810, p 74. 
 
AMERICAN CoNFRimc$, 1778 TO 1781. 175 
 
 bury's Conference, which had been held at Baltimore. 
 Some might allege that it was because the victorious 
 party controlled the press, but probably it was be- 
 cause at the period when the Minutes were put in 
 print both sides had so blended into one that all were 
 willing to let the matter sink into oblivion. 
 
 It had been agreed that a letter would be addressed 
 to Mr. Wesley. Mr. Garrettson tells us that "a cir- 
 cumstantial letter was written to that venerable 
 apostle of the age," l and in his Semi-centennial Ser- 
 mon he states that the communication was drawn up 
 by John Dickins. On Friday, the 12th of May, 1780, 
 Mr. Asbury notes that he takes a "rest this day to 
 write to Mr. Wesley." 2 Doubtless in this letter he re- 
 counted the occurrences to which we have referred, 
 and requested his advice and aid; but on Saturday, 
 the 16th of September, he specifically mentions writ- 
 ing on that subject. He says: "Wrote to Mr. Wes- 
 ley at the desire of the Virginia Conference, who had 
 consented to suspend the administration of the ordi- 
 nances for one year." 3 At the same time he was ex- 
 erting his influence upon the preachers to consummate 
 the reunion. On the 24th of October, 1780, he says: 
 "I wrote to the preachers jointly and severally about 
 a union." 4 November the llth he makes this curious 
 entry: "William Glendenning has handed me a book 
 written by Jeremiah Burroughs, in the time of the 
 Commonwealth, upon heart-divisions and the evil of 
 
 1 F. Garrettson's Autobiography, p. 162. 
 
 Asbury s Journal, 1821, Vol. I, p. 284. Id., p. 309. * Id., p. 314. 
 
176 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 the times. In this work I promise myself good argu- 
 ments against our separating brethren." 1 So he was 
 preparing for further conflict. 
 
 The heading of the printed Minutes for 1781 
 states the Conference was " held at Choptank, State 
 of Delaware, April 16, 1781, and adjourned to Balti- 
 more the 24th of said month." 
 
 Lee says: "On the 24th day of April the ninth 
 Conference met in Baltimore. But previous to this a 
 few preachers on the Eastern Shore held a little Con- 
 ference in Delaware State, near Choptank, to make 
 some arrangements for those preachers who could not 
 go with them, and then adjourned (as they called it) 
 to Baltimore; so, upon the whole, it was considered 
 but one Conference." 2 Asbury mentions the "little 
 Conference" under date of April 13th, though the entry 
 evidently covers two or more days. He says : " After 
 meeting we rode about twenty miles to Brother 
 White's, where about twenty preachers met together 
 to hold a Conference." 3 But he does not say what 
 particular business called them together or what they 
 did at this gathering. At the Baltimore session, how- 
 ever, there seemed a necessity for presenting some 
 explanation, and the printed Minutes show the follow- 
 ing questions and answers : 
 
 " Ques. 2. Why was Conference begun at Choptank ? 
 
 " Ans. To examine those who could not go to Baltimore, 
 and to provide supplies for the circuits where the Lord is 
 more immediately pouring out his Spirit. 
 
 i Asbury's Journal, 1821, Vol. I, p. 318. 
 
 a Jesse Lee, History of Methodists, 1810, p. 75. 
 
 Asbury's Journal, 1821, Vol. I, p. 328. 
 
AMERICAN CONFERENCES, 1778 TO 1781. 177 
 
 " Qucs. 3. Is there any precedent for this in the economy 
 of Methodism ? 
 
 " Ans. Yes. Mr. Wesley generally holds a Conference in 
 Ireland for the same purposes." 
 
 The names in the printed Minutes would lead us 
 to infer that the most of those who met near Chop- 
 tank also attended at Baltimore, and it is not improb- 
 able that Asbury availed himself of the occasion to 
 make it a sort of a "preparatory Conference/' some- 
 what like the meeting held in Delaware in 1779, and 
 possibly plans were mapped out for the work at Balti- 
 more. To say that it adjourned to meet in Baltimore 
 is rather awkward. This was not a regular Confer- 
 ence, and the Conference at Baltimore was not an 
 adjourned meeting of the Conference held at Chop- 
 tank, but was the regularly appointed Conference 
 for the year, in which the Northern and Southern 
 preachers were to meet together, as one called it, in 
 " General Conference ;" that is to say, the preachers 
 generally were to meet together in one Conference, 
 and not, as they had been doing for two years, in two 
 distinct Conferences. 
 
 The Conference held in Baltimore on the 24th of 
 April, 1781, was the ninth regular Conference. All 
 that Asbury gives in his journal about the session is 
 the following : " Our Conference began in Baltimore, 
 wfiere several of the preachers attended from Vir- 
 ginia and North Carolina. All but one agreed to re- 
 turn to the old plan, and give up the administration 
 of the ordinances. Our troubles now seem over from 
 that quarter, and there appears to be a considerable 
 
178 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 change in the preachers from North to South. All 
 was conducted in peace and love." l 
 
 Jesse Lee, who became a traveling preacher the 
 next year, remarks that "at this Conference most 
 part, if not all, the traveling preachers who were 
 present, resolved, and to give the greater sanction, 
 they subscribed their names to the resolution, to dis- 
 countenance a separation among either preachers or 
 people. They also agreed that they would preach 
 the old Methodist doctrine and enforce the discipline 
 which was contained in the Notes, 2 Sermons, and 
 Minutes published by Mr. Wesley." 3 
 
 This appears to have been about the first thing 
 presented and settled ; for the first item in the printed 
 Minutes is : 
 
 " Ques. 1. What preachers are now determined, 
 after mature consideration, close observation, and 
 earnest prayer, to preach the old Methodist doctrine, 
 and strictly enforce the discipline as contained in the 
 Notes, Sermons, and Minutes published by Mr. 
 Wesley so far as they respect both preachers and peo- 
 ple, according to the knowledge we have of them, 
 and the ability God shall give, and firmly resolved 
 to discountenance a separation among either preachers 
 or people ?" and the answer is in the form of thirty- 
 nine names, evidently those of the preachers present 
 who signed the agreement. Among these we find 
 the names of Reuben Ellis and Lee Roy Cole/ who 
 
 i Asbury's Journal, 1821, Vol I, p. 328. 
 
 Wesley's Notes on the New Testament. 
 
 Jesse Lee, History of Methodists, 1810, p. 75. 
 < Or Leroy Cole. 
 
AMERICAN CONFERENCES, 1778 TO 1781. 179 
 
 were in the governing committee and presbytery 
 created by the Virginia Conference of 1779. We 
 find also the names of Francis Poythress, Nelson 
 Reed, and Henry Willis, who, in that Conference, 
 advocated the right of the Methodist preachers to 
 administer the sacraments; 1 but we miss those of 
 other prominent Southern members. 
 
 Under question 19, " Who desist from traveling 
 this year?" we find the names of John Dickins, 
 Tsham Tatum, William Moore, Greenberry Green, 
 and Daniel Ruff, all of whom, excepting the last 
 named, were identified with the Southern section. 
 The name of James O' Kelly does not appear among 
 the signers or among those taking appointments, but 
 it reappears in the following year. The probabil- 
 ity is that a number of the Southern men considered 
 the question settled and remained on their circuits; 
 but no other Conference was held this year. John 
 Dickins probably retired for the time being on ac- 
 count of ill-health ; for, as already noted, his voice 
 was failing. 
 
 There was now only one Conference, and Ameri- 
 can Methodism was once more united. If the union 
 had not taken place, there might have grown up from 
 that day in the United States two Methodisms, not 
 only with differences in polity, but also with sec- 
 tional distinctions. Yet the union was brought about 
 by sacrificing the principle of self-government, as 
 asserted by the Virginia Conference, and putting 
 
 Philip Gatch's MS. Journal ; Leroy M. Lee, D. D., Life of Jesse 
 Lee, 1860, p. 79. 
 
180 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 themselves under the government of one man 
 Asbury. In other words, it was a reversion to per- 
 sonal government. The compensation was in the 
 unity it gave as a basis for another departure which 
 would speedily come. 
 
 The Conference took action in regard to a number 
 of practical matters, as the following questions and 
 answers will show : 
 
 " Ques. 4. Should we take the preachers into full connec- 
 tion after one year's trial ? Or, would it not be better, after 
 considering how young they are in age, grace, and gifts, to try 
 them twa years; unless it be one of double testimony, of 
 whom there is a general approbation ? 
 
 "Ans. Yes. 
 
 " Ques. 5. Shall any assistant take a local preacher to travel 
 in the circuit, in the vacancy of Conference, without consult- 
 ing Brother Asbury, or the assistants near him, by word or 
 letter? 
 
 "Ans. No. 
 
 " Ques. 6. If any former assistant has had just cause for 
 removing preaching from any house, should his successor re- 
 turn to it, without consulting Brother Asbury or the assistants 
 in the circuits near him ; and, if it remains doubtful, leave it 
 till next Conference ? 
 
 "Ans. Agreed. 
 
 " Ques. 7. Ought not the preachers to examine every per- 
 son admitted upon trial for three months first, whether they 
 have been turned out; and if so, let them not be received, 
 without they have evidenced repentance and can be generally 
 recommended ? 
 
 "Ans. Yes. 
 
 " Ques. 8. Ought not the preachers often to read the 
 1 Rules of the Societies,' the c Character of a Methodist,' and 
 the ' Plain Account of Christian Perfection,' if they have got 
 them? 
 
 "Ans. Yes. 
 
 " Ques. 14. Ought not every assistant to give a circum- 
 
AMERICAN CONFERENCES, 1778 TO 1781. 181 
 
 stantial account of the circuit in writing, both of societies 
 and local preachers, with a plan, to his successor? 
 
 "Ana. Yes. 
 
 " Ques. 15. Ought not each assistant to inform all our so- 
 cieties in his circuit of the sum that is to be made up for the 
 preachers' quarterage, exclusive of traveling expenses, and 
 urge them to give according to their several abilities? 
 
 "Ant. Yes. 
 
 " Ques. 17. What proper method should be taken, sup- 
 posing any difference should arise in dealing between our 
 brethren ? 
 
 " Ans. Let the assistant preacher at quarterly meeting 
 consult with the stewards in appointing proper persons to ex- 
 amine into the circumstances; and if there be any suspicion 
 of injustice or inability in the referees, to appoint men of 
 more skill and probity, and the parties to abide by their de- 
 cision, or be excluded from the society." 1 
 
 The printed Minutes make no mention of the 
 reception of any letter from Mr. Wesley in response 
 to that which had been sent him the previous year, 
 in regard to their sacramental deprivations and diffi- 
 culties; but the Rev. Freeborn Garrettson is author- 
 ity for the assertion that his reply had been received 
 and was made known this year. Speaking of his 
 mission to the Virginia Conference, he says: "The 
 proposition that we made to them was, that they 
 should suspend the administration of the ordinances 
 for one year; in the meanwhile we would consult 
 Mr. Wesley, and in the following May we would 
 have a Union Conference in Baltimore and abide by 
 his judgment. To this proposal they unanimously 
 agreed; and a letter, containing a circumstantial ac- 
 count of the case, drawn up by Mr. Dickins, was 
 
 i Printed Minutes, 1773-1813, pp. 28-32. 
 
182 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 sent to Mr. Wesley. In May, 1781, we met, and re- 
 ceived Mr. Wesley's answer, which was that we 
 should continue on the old plan until further direc- 
 tion. We unanimously agreed to follow his counsel, 
 and went on harmoniously." l 
 
 Mr. Garrettson's memory was probably a little at 
 fault as to the time of the meeting of the Conference 
 in Baltimore. The fact is that it met in the latter 
 part of April ; but as the regular sessions of Confer- 
 ences in Baltimore were invariably held in the month 
 of May in the early years, the mistake is easily ex- 
 plained. It must seem singular that Mr. Garrettson 
 is the only one of the men of that time who men- 
 tions the reception of a letter from Mr. Wesley in 
 1781 ; and yet, if the war did not interfere, nothing 
 is more probable than that such a reply came from 
 the founder of Methodism. The agreement had been 
 to "suspend the ordinances" for one year, and to 
 submit the case to Mr. Wesley, which implied the ex- 
 pectation that a letter would be sent and a reply could 
 be received within a year. That the sacraments were 
 generally suspended for several years, leads to the infer- 
 ence either that a letter so advising had been received 
 from Wesley, or that the Southern preachers for 
 other reasons had abandoned the position which, be- 
 cause of the neglected condition of the people, they 
 had conscientiously taken. It seems more probable 
 that word had come from Wesley. 
 
 The work in the South had been greatly inter- 
 fered with by the moving armies and the animosities 
 
 1 Garrettson's Semi-centennial Sermon. 
 
AMKRICAN CONFERENCES, 1778 TO 1781. 183 
 
 existing between the patriots and the Tories, and yet 
 the reports at this Conference showed a gain of 22 
 preachers and 2,035 members; 1 but the War of Inde- 
 pendence was drawing to a close. The capitulation 
 of General Cornwallis to Washington at Yorktown, 
 on the 19th of October, 1781, was the beginning 
 of the end ; and the British House of Commons, on 
 the 4th of March, 1782, resolved that those who 
 would advise the king to continue the war on the 
 continent of North America should be declared ene- 
 mies of the sovereign and of the country. The strug- 
 gle was now about over, though the hostile armies re- 
 mained in the field. 
 
 The Conference of 1781 closed another period in 
 the history of the American Conferences. The varia- 
 tion from Wesley's instructions and the departure 
 from the original agreement had been abandoned by 
 the Southern section. Now there was really only one 
 Conference; and Asbury, who had once been ap- 
 pointed by Mr. Wesley, is now recognized through- 
 out the land as Wesley's general assistant for 
 America; so that once more the American preachers 
 united in one Conference are in submission to Mr. 
 Wesley, or to that which they understand to be his 
 views. 
 
 i Minutes. 
 
CHAPTER VI. 
 
 THE CONFERENCE IN AMERICA FROM 1782 TO 1784. 
 
 WITH a united Conference, and with a unit ol 
 government in Mr. Asbury, American Method- 
 ism entered upon a new but brief period in its early 
 career. 
 
 Everything seemed serene upon the surface, but 
 Mr. Asbury's journal gives us glimpses of lingering 
 dissatisfaction and difficulty. 
 
 In the month of October, 1781, Asbury, was in 
 Pennsylvania. On the 12th he came to Philadelphia, 
 where he remained about a week. During this visit 
 he notes that " the society here appears to be in a 
 better state than they have been in since the British 
 army was here. . . . There is a deepening of the 
 work in some souls, but I fear the religion of others 
 evaporates in talk. . . . Among too many of the 
 citizens the spirit of politics has, in whole or in part, 
 eaten out the spirit of religion." 1 
 
 At this time he states : "We have come to a con- 
 clusion to print the four volumes of ' Mr. Wesley's 
 Sermons/" which were recognized as a depository 
 of Wesleyan doctrine. A few days later, he writes : 
 " My intervals of time are employed in marking 
 ' Baxter's Cure for Church Divisions' for abridg- 
 
 * Asbury's Journal, 1821, Vol. I, pp. 335, 336. 
 184 
 
AMERICAN CONFERENCE, 1782 TO 1784. 185 
 
 ment, which may some day see the light." Possibly 
 he wished he had it then for distribution, for he adds: 
 "My soul is drawn out to God to know whether I 
 ought to go to Virginia this winter, in order, if pos- 
 sible, to prevent the spreading of the fire of di- 
 vision." l 
 
 On the 3d of the following month Asbury at- 
 tended a quarterly meeting in Delaware, and he ob- 
 serves : " We scrutinized and dealt with fidelity one 
 with another. Nothing would satisfy the preachers 
 but my consenting to go to Virginia," 2 and there 
 must have been some reason for their anxiety, and 
 that reason was the reported discontent in the 
 South. 
 
 On the 6th of December he reached Baltimore. 
 He says : " Here I received letters from Virginia, by 
 which I learn that affairs are not so bad in Virginia 
 as I feared. A few of the local preachers have made 
 some stir, and the traveling preachers have with- 
 drawn from them and their adherents. I have spent 
 some time in. Baltimore with satisfaction, and could 
 freely slay longer; but there may be danger in these 
 trading towns, and my way South seems to be open." 3 
 On the 19th of December he was in Leesburg, 
 Virginia. He writes : " From thence I traveled and 
 preached through Hanover and Gloucester Circuits. 
 I find the spirit of party among some of tne people. 
 The local preachers tell them of the ordinances, and 
 they catch at them like fish at a bait ; but when they 
 are informed that they will have to give up the 
 
 i Asbury 's Journal, 1821, Vol. I, p. 336. * Ibid. Id., p. 887. 
 
 13 
 
186 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 traveling preachers, I apprehend they will not be so 
 fond of their new plan; and, if I judge right, the last 
 struggle of a yielding party will be made at the 
 approaching Conference, to be held at the Manakin- 
 town." 1 The Conference at Manakintown, to which 
 he alludes, was evidently a Quarterly Conference. 
 
 In the month of January, 1782, he mentions that 
 " there is considerable distress amongst our societies, 
 caused by some of the local preachers, who are not 
 satisfied unless they administer the ordinances with- 
 out order or ordination ; and the whole circuit ap- 
 pears to be more or less tinctured with their spirit." 
 Again he says : " I find the party men among our so- 
 cieties grow weak, and I am persuaded this division 
 will cause the sincere among preachers and people to 
 cleave closer to doctrine and discipline, and may be 
 the means of purging our societies of those who are 
 corrupt in their principles." 2 
 
 All this shows that, notwithstanding the action of 
 the Conference, there was still considerable dissatis- 
 faction among the people in the South. because they 
 were without the sacraments. It is probable, also, 
 that prominent preachers sympathized with this 
 feeling. 
 
 In the month of March, 1782, Asbury traveled 
 through North Carolina. While here he met Philip 
 Bruce, who had charge of the New Hope Circuit ; 
 and he also met James O ? Kelly, who at this time 
 appears to have been without a regular appoint- 
 ment. It is probable that Mr. O ) Kelly was not quite 
 
 i Asbury 's Journal, 1821, Vol. I, p. 337. Id., p. 338. 
 
AMERICAN CONFKRKNCK, 1782 TO 1784. 187 
 
 satisfied with the concession that had been made by 
 the Virginia Conference, and that Mr. Bruce was not 
 quite sure the right thing had been done; for Asbury, 
 on the 18th of March, writes: "I obtained the prom- 
 ise of Brothers P. Bruce and O'Kelly to join heart- 
 ily in our connection ;" l and so it is likely that As- 
 bury brought his influence to bear upon other persons 
 who were somewhat disaffected. Then he journeyed 
 northward for the Conference which was to be held 
 in Virginia. On the 13th of April he held a quar- 
 terly meeting at White Oak Chapel, where he preached 
 on: "The children thou shalt have after thou hast 
 lost the other, shall say again in thine ears, The 
 place is too strait for me; give place to me that I 
 may dwell. Then shalt thou say in thine heart, 
 Who hath begotten me these, seeing I have Jost my 
 children and am desolate ?" etc. 2 In this we may 
 perceive some reference to probable losses in the 
 past, and an encouragement to hope for gains in the 
 future. Thus Asbury has frequent direct or indirect 
 allusions to the difficulties which had existed in 
 American Methodism, and possibly then existed over 
 the sacramental question. 
 
 On Sunday, April 14th, he makes this entry : " I 
 preached at the chapel, and then went to Church. I 
 read the lessons for Mr. Jarratt, who preached a great 
 sermon on ' Union and Love/ from the 123d Psalm. 
 We received the sacrament, and afterward went home 
 with Mr. Jarratt, that we might accompany him to 
 
 i Asbury's Journal, 1821, Vol. I, p. 343. 
 
 s Isaiah xlix, 20, prob. to 23 ; Ahbury's Journal, Vol. I, p. 344. 
 
188 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 our Conference." 1 The gentleman to whom As- 
 bury refers had been a clergyman of the Church of 
 England, and was one of a very small number 
 left in the country after the War of Independ- 
 ence began; and it will be seen that Mr. Asbury 
 illustrated his teachings, for he preached in the 
 Methodist Chapel and then went to "Church" for 
 the sacraments from an Episcopally ordained clergy- 
 man. It is interesting to note that the Methodist 
 preacher read the lessons for the Episcopal clergyman. 
 
 The Eev. Devereux Jarratt, to whom allusion has 
 just been made, was born in New Kent County, Vir- 
 ginia, in 1732 or 1733. Determining to enter the 
 ministry, he went to England for that purpose in 
 1762. On his return he became rector of the parish 
 at Bath. He was an evangelical clergyman, and be- 
 cause of his friendliness towards" the early Method- 
 ists, and especially because of his relation to ques- 
 tions in dispute, deserves special mention. 
 
 In 1773 he wrote to Mr. Wesley, thanking him for 
 sending preachers to America, two of whom Pilmoor 
 and Boardman were then laboring in Virginia, but 
 asks: "What can two or three preachers do in such 
 an extended country as this? Can not you do some- 
 thing more for us? Can not you send us a minister 
 of the Church of England, to be stationed in the 
 vacant parish? I wish you could see how matters 
 are among us. This would serve instead of a thou- 
 sand arguments to induce you to exert yourself in 
 this affair." At that period he says there were 
 
 * Asbury's Journal, 1821, Vol. I, p. 344. 
 
AMERICAN CONFERENCE, 1782 TO 1784. 189 
 
 ninety-five parishes in the Colony, and all, excepting 
 one, were supplied with clergymen; but that ninety- 
 three out of the ninety-four ministers appeared to be 
 without "the power and spirit of vital religion." 1 
 
 In a narrative which he wrote for Mr. Wesley, 
 Mr. Jarratt says: "August 29, 1763, I was chosen 
 rector of B. in the county of D. in Virginia. Igno- 
 rance of the things of God, profaneness, and irre- 
 ligion then prevailed among all ranks and degrees; 
 so that I doubt if even the form of godliness was to 
 be found in any one family of this large and popu- 
 lous parish. I was a stranger to the people; my 
 doctrines were quite new to them, and were neither 
 preached nor believed by any other clergyman, so far 
 as I could learn, throughout the province." 2 
 
 This picture of ministers and people is from an 
 impartial hand, and gives us a fair conception of 
 clergy and laity in Virginia shortly before the Revo- 
 lutionary War; and it is not a matter to be won- 
 dered at that pious people objected to taking the sac- 
 raments from clergymen of such a character. 
 
 Mr. Jarratt tells in this narrative that, in 1765, a 
 few were religiously impressed, and that then he 
 " began to preach abroad, as well as in private houses, 
 and to meet little companies in the evenings, and 
 converse freely on divine things." Further, he says: 
 
 "In the years 1770 and 1771 we had a more considerable 
 outpouring of the Spirit, at a place in my parish called White 
 Oak. It was here first I formed the people into a society, that 
 
 i Methodist Magazine, 1786, p. 567. 
 'Asbury's Journal, 1821, p. 158. 
 
ICO GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 they might assist and strengthen each other. ... In the 
 year 1772 the revival was more considerable, and extended it- 
 self in some places for fifty or sixty miles round. It increased 
 still more in the following year, and several sinners were 
 truly converted to God. In spring, 1774, it was more re- 
 markable than ever. ... I formed several societies out 
 of those which were convinced or converted. ... In the 
 counties of Sussex and Brunswick, the work for the year 1773 
 was chiefly carried on by the labors of the people called 
 Methodists. The first of them who appeared in these parts 
 was Mr. E. W. [Robert Williams], who, you know, was a plain, 
 artless, indefatigable preacher of the gospel. . . . The 
 next year others of his brethren came, who gathered many 
 societies, both in this neighborhood and in other places, as far 
 as North Carolina. They now began to ride the circuit, and 
 to take care of the societies already formed, which was ren- 
 dered a happy means both of deepening and spreading the 
 work of God." 1 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Jarratt was the one clergyman who 
 showed such a friendly interest in the early American 
 Meihodiets. If there had been many more like him, 
 it is not probable that the Virginia Conference would 
 have asserted its right, in 1779, to ordain its preachers, 
 and give the Methodist people the sacraments at the 
 hands of their own pastors, under whose ministry 
 they had been converted ; and yet, even if there had 
 been many such clergymen, there is little doubt that 
 at a later period the Methodists would have de- 
 manded their own sacraments, just as English 
 preachers urged their right and finally secured it, 
 though in a land where State clergymen were abun- 
 dant. At this time, however, owing to the flight of 
 
 2 Printed in Asbury 's Journal, 1821, pp. 158, 159 ; Methodist Quarterly 
 Review, 1855, pp. 502, 503. 
 
AMERICAN CONFERENCE, 1782 TO 1784. 191 
 
 nearly all the English clergy on account of the Revo- 
 lution, the Virginia preachers believed the demand 
 for present action was imperative. 
 
 The heading of the printed Minutes for 1782 
 states that the Conference was "held at Ellis's 
 Preaching-house, in Sussex County, Virginia, April 
 17, 1782, and adjourned to Baltimore, May 21st." 
 This was the tenth regular Annual Conference, and 
 from this time there were never less than two ses- 
 sions held each year. For the purpose of making 
 regulations or expressing opinions for the whole body 
 of American Methodists, both bodies were one; or 
 rather, the one body met in two sections as a matter 
 of convenience. 
 
 Lee observes that "the work had so increased and 
 spread that it was now found necessary to have a Con- 
 ference in the South every year, continuing the Con- 
 ference in the North as usual. Yet, as the Conference 
 in the North was of the longest standing, and 
 withal composed of the oldest preachers, it was al- 
 lowed greater privileges than that in the South, es- 
 pecially in making rules and forming regulations for 
 the societies. Accordingly, when anything was 
 agreed to in the Virginia Conference, and afterwards 
 disapproved of in the Baltimore Conference, it was 
 dropped. But if any rule was fixed and determined 
 on at the Baltimore Conference, the preachers in the 
 South were under the necessity of abiding by it. 
 The Southern Conference was considered at that time 
 as a convenience, and designed to accommodate the 
 preachers in that part of the work, and to do all the 
 
192 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 business of a regular Conference, except that of mak- 
 ing or altering particular rules." l 
 
 Dr. Leroy M. Lee says : " This division of a still 
 united body for there was really but one Conference 
 after all seems to have been designed more for the 
 convenience of the preachers in the Southern and more 
 distant portions of the work than for any other ob- 
 ject. A preacher in one division possessed the right 
 to sit and vote in the other. And as the rules and 
 regulations then forming the subjects of legislation 
 were of a prudential and temporary nature, there was 
 not, that we are aware of, any ground of complaint 
 or any cause of dissatisfaction at the possession or 
 exercise of the veto power in the Northern branch of 
 the body." 2 The same author suggests that " it was, 
 perhaps, owing to this arrangement, that the Confer- 
 ence in the South was held first, and closed its pro- 
 ceedings by adjourning to meet at the time and place 
 to be held in the North." 
 
 Asbury's Baltimore Conference, originally repre- 
 senting a protesting body and a section, had become 
 the chief Conference, and the Virginia Conference, 
 which in 1779 represented a majority of the preach- 
 ers and the people, had sunk to a secondary and 
 subordinate place. The regular Conference, which 
 met in Virginia in 1779 and 1780, had indeed 
 merged itself into the Baltimofe Conference, and the 
 new Virginia Conference had become a sort of " pre- 
 paratory Conference," and hereafter, for a number of 
 
 i Jesse Lee, History of Methodists, 1810, pp. 78, 79. 
 
 Leroy M. Lee, Life of Rev. Jesse Lee, Nashville, 1860, p. 101. 
 
AMERICAN CONFERENCE, 1782 TO 1784. 193 
 
 years, will we read of the Conference at " Ellis' s and 
 at Baltimore." 
 
 We do not know precisely what was done at the 
 Conference held at the former place on the 17th 
 of April, but Asbury has recorded some of the par- 
 ticulars. He says: 
 
 "Tuesday (16th) we set out, and on the next day (17th) 
 reached Ellis's, at whose house we held the Conference. The 
 people flocked together for preaching. Mr. Jarratt gave us a 
 profitable discourse on the 14th chapter of Hosea. l 
 
 "In the evening the preachers met in Conference. As 
 there had been much distress felt by those of them of 
 Virginia relative to the administration of the ordinances, I 
 proposed to such as were so disposed, to enter into a written 
 agreement to cleave to the old plan, in which we had been so 
 greatly blessed, that we might have the greater confidence in 
 each other, and know on whom to depend. This instrument 
 was signed by the greater part of the preachers without hesi- 
 tation. Next morning I preached on Phil, ii, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. I 
 had liberty, and it pleased God to set it home. One of the 
 preachers, James Haw, who had his difficulties, was delivered 
 from them all, and, with the exception of one, all the signa- 
 tures of the preachers present were obtained. We received 
 seven into connection, and four remained on trial. At noon, 
 Mr. Jarratt spoke on the union of the attributes. Friday, 19th, 
 we amicably settled our business and closed our Conference. 
 Mr. Jarratt preached on ' A man shall be as a hiding-place 
 from the wind, and a covert from the tempest,' etc. We had 
 a love-feast the power of God was manifested in a most ex- 
 traordinary manner preachers and people wept, believed, 
 loved, and obeyed." 2 
 
 !"I will be as the dew unto Israel: he shall grow as the Illy, and cast 
 forth his roots as Lebanon. His branches shall spread, and his beauty 
 shall be as the olive tree, and his smell as Lebanon. They that dwell 
 under his shadow shall return ; they shall revive as the corn, and grow 
 as the vine ; the scent thereof shall be as the wine of Lebanon." 
 
 a Asbury's Journal, New York, 1821, pp. 344, 345. 
 
194 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 A peculiar emphasis seems to be placed on the last 
 word, " obeyed." Loyalty to authority was part of the 
 training of a Methodist minister. It is evident that 
 there was a restlessness on the part of the preachers 
 and people, which gave Asbury great anxiety. There 
 was ground for this restiveness, for the Virginia 
 Conference of 1780 had made a great concession in 
 suspending the administration of the sacraments for 
 one year. Now two years had passed, and yet no re- 
 lief had come. Still Asbury persevered in his at- 
 tempt to hold them in allegiance to Wesley and the 
 Large Minutes, and so privately exerted his influ- 
 ence, and now in the Conference asks the preachers 
 to sign a formal instrument, so that he might " know 
 on whom to depend." 
 
 It would appear that some, possibly without a 
 formal renunciation of the authority of the Confer- 
 ence, persisted in administering the sacraments. Prob- 
 ably they waited until the year agreed upon for the 
 suspension had ended, and then resumed, believing 
 that, as they had kept their part of the contract, they 
 were now at liberty to proceed as before. 
 
 The Sunday after this Conference, Mr. Asbury 
 writes : " I am persuaded the separation of some 
 from our original plan about the ordinances will, 
 upon the whole, have a tendency to unite the body 
 together, and to make the preachers and people abide 
 wherein they are called." 1 
 
 Two weeks later he writes : " I find many of the 
 
 i Asbury's Journal, 1821, Vol. I, p. 345. 
 
AMERICAN CONFERENCE, 1782 TO 1784. 195 
 
 people, and some of the local preachers, quite warm 
 about the ordinances, on which subject there is much 
 disputation." 1 
 
 Asbury is now on his way to the Conference at 
 Baltimore. On the llth of May he preached at Cul- 
 peper Court House, Virginia, where he says : " Here 
 I heard the good news that Britain had acknowledged 
 the independence for which America has been con- 
 tending may it be so! The Lord does what to 
 him seemeth good." 2 This news was a little pre- 
 mature, for the preliminary articles of peace were not 
 signed until the 30th of November, 1782, and the 
 definitive treaty of peace between England and the 
 United States was not signed until the 3d of Sep- 
 tember of the following year ; but Sir Guy Carleton 
 arrived at New York early in May, 1782, with in- 
 structions to promote the wishes of Great Britain for 
 an accommodation with the United States. Still the 
 remark is useful as showing the sympathy of As- 
 ! bury for the cause of the young Republic. In a 
 few days we find him holding a quarterly meeting 
 on Fairfax Circuit, and on the 18th he writes : " I 
 set out with Brother G. [Does he mean Gatch or 
 Glendcnning?], who has given up his separating plan. 
 The Lord has conquered him, and I hope that all who 
 are worthy will return." 3 Asbury's journal gives a 
 very brief account of the Conference held in Balti- 
 more in May, 1782. In it Asbury says: 
 
 "Monday, 21st. A few of us began Conference* in Balti- 
 more. Next day we had a full meeting. The preachers all 
 i Asbury's Journal, 1821, Vol. I, p. 345. Ibid. Id. , p. 346. 
 
196 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 signed the agreement proposed at the Virginia Conference, and 
 there was a unanimous resolve to adhere to the old Methodist 
 plan. We spent most of the day in examining the preachers. 
 We had regular daily preaching. Monday Brother Ellis 
 preached ; on Tuesday I spoke on 1 Tim. iv, 12. 
 
 " Wednesday, 23d. We had many things before us. Our 
 printing plan was suspended for the present for want of funds. 
 
 " Friday 25th. Was set apart for fasting and prayer. We> 
 had a love-feast. The Lord was present and all was well. 
 The preachers, in general were satisfied. I found myself bur- 
 thened with labors and cares. We have now fifty-nine travel- 
 ing preachers, and eleven thousand and seven hundred and 
 eighty-five in society. Our young men are serious and their 
 gifts enlarged." l 
 
 His principal purpose appears to have been to 
 prevent the administration of the sacraments by the 
 Methodist preachers, and to keep them in the same 
 relation to Wesley and the Large Minutes as they 
 were at the first Conference held in 1773. Hence the 
 request for signatures to the new agreement. Thus 
 from time to time he drives in the bolts, and then rivets 
 them so that they are more and more firmly bound. 
 
 The Minutes show a number of changes- in the 
 form, order, and substance of the questions asked. 
 The standing questions are brought first, and the tem- 
 porary and miscellaneous questions follow. The reg- 
 ular questions were : " 1. What preachers are admitted 
 into connection?" 2 "2. What preachers remain on 
 trial?" "3. What preachers are admitted on trial?" 
 "4. Who act as assistants?" " 5. Are there any ob- 
 jections to any of the preachers ?" " 6. How are 
 the preachers stationed ?" " 7. How are the preachers 
 
 l Asbury's Journal, 1821, Vol. I, p. 346. 
 
 8 Jesse Lee says " full connection/' History of Methodists, p, 79. 
 
AMERICAN CONFERENCE, 1782 TO 1784. 197 
 
 to change after six months?" "8. What numbers 
 are there in society ?" " 9. What is the yearly collec- 
 tion?" The answer to this question was " 42. 16s. 
 3d" "10. How was it expended?" " Ans. On 
 the necessities of the preachers." Then followed 
 queries of a less permanent nature, thus, "11. 
 What shall be done to revive the work?" "Ans. 
 Hold evening meetings and preach in the mornings 
 in convenient places." The matter of equality of sup- 
 port was met in this way: " Ques. 12. What shall be 
 done to get a regular and impartial supply for the 
 maintenance of the preachers?" "Ans. Let every- 
 thing they receive, either in money or clothing, be 
 valued by the preachers and stewards at quarterly 
 meeting, and an account of the deficiency given in to 
 the Conference, that he may be supplied by the 
 profits arising from the books and the Conference 
 collections." " Ques. 13. How shall we more effect- 
 ually guard against disorderly traveling preachers?" 
 " Ans. Write at the bottom of every certificate : The 
 authority this conveys is limited to next Conference.'* 
 " Ques. 14. How must we do if a preacher will not 
 desist after being found guilty?" "Ans. Let the 
 nearest assistant stop him immediately. In Brother 
 Asbury's absence, let the preachers inform the people 
 of these rules." " Ques. 15. How shall we more ef- 
 fectually guard against disorderly local preachers?" 
 "Ans. Write at the bottom of the certificate: This 
 conveys authority no longer than you walk uprightly 
 and submit to the direction of the assistant preacher." 
 Thus prudential regulations were made so that the 
 
198 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 license of a preacher was good only for one year, and 
 if it was not then renewed the individual lost his rank. 
 
 The sixteenth question was another act of pro- 
 spective excommunication. It read : " By what rule 
 shall we conduct ourselves towards the preachers and 
 people that separate from us ?" According to the 
 printed Minutes, the answer was, " Disown them." 
 Separation, as used by Asbury, meant the administra- 
 tion of the sacraments by the Methodist preachers and 
 receiving them at their hands by the people, which 
 the question and answer prove was still done by 
 some, possibly, as already suggested, on the ground 
 that they had waited a year and yet no relief had 
 come. 
 
 Dr. Leroy M. Lee had access to manuscript Min- 
 utes of the Conference held at "Ellis's Meeting- 
 house" in 1782, 1783, and 1784, and he says that the 
 answer given in the manuscript journal was not in the 
 two words " disown them, " but was, " Put the peo- 
 ple out of society when they receive, and the preachers 
 when they administer, the ordinances, if they have 
 been previously warned." 1 
 
 It is probable that extreme measures were not re- 
 sorted to until the parties had been particularly 
 warned; but there was an unmistakable determination 
 to exclude all who did not yield to the rule as 
 agreed upon. 
 
 For the first time a certificate of membership for 
 the laity was ordered. Question 17 was: " How shall 
 
 i Leroy M. Lee, B. D., Life of Rev. Jesse Lee, Nashville, 1860, pp. 
 100-102. 
 
AMERICAN CONFERENCE, 1782 TO 1784. 199 
 
 we more effectually guard against impostors?" "Ans. 
 Let no person remove from North to South without 
 a certificate from the assistant preacher, and let no 
 one be received into society without." Or, as Lee 
 phrases it: "To guard against disorderly members, 
 it was concluded that no member of our society 
 should remove to another part of the country without 
 a certificate from the assistant preacher, and if they 
 did not carry with them such a certificate, they should 
 not be received into society." 1 
 
 The eighteenth question brings us once more to the 
 sacramental question. It was as follows : " Shall we 
 erase that question proposed in Deer Creek Confer- 
 ence respecting the ordinances ? " " Ans. Undoubtedly 
 we must. It can have no place in our Minutes while 
 we stand to our agreement signed in Conference ; it is 
 therefore disannulled." The "Deer Creek Confer- 
 ence" was held "at a preaching-house near Deer 
 Creek, in Harford County, Md., May 20, 1777." 
 Turning to the printed Minutes for that year, we do 
 not find any reference to the sacraments. It is mani- 
 fest that something was expunged so that it did not 
 appear when, in 1795, for the first time, the Minutes 
 of 1777 were printed. Just how much was stricken 
 out we can not tell ; but, as already seen, Garrettson 
 states that the question, "Shall the* preachers in 
 America administer the ordinances?" was asked; or, 
 as Gatch has it in his manuscript journal, it was 
 asked, " What shall be done with respect to the or- 
 
 i Jesse Lee, Hist, of Methodists, 1810, p. 80. 
 
200 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 dinances?" and Garrettson says it was agreed to "sus- 
 pend them until the next Conference." Gatch also 
 states that the question of altering the " original plan " 
 was considered, and the preachers agreed that the 
 next Conference would show them more clearly. 1 
 
 Mr. Garrettson says : " The question was asked, 
 I think, by Mr. Rankin, ' Shall we administer the 
 ordinances ?' It was debated, but the decision w r as 
 suspended till the next Conference." 2 
 
 Under the action of the Conference of 1782 all 
 this was erased from the Minutes of 1777, and pos- 
 sibly much more ; and, though the reference is only 
 to the Deer Creek Conference, it is probable that the 
 principle was applied to the Minutes of the Fluvanna 
 and other Conferences, so that every question and 
 every decision which seemed to favor the idea of 
 Methodist preachers administering the sacraments was 
 expunged from the manuscript Minutes. This will 
 account for the silence of the printed Minutes upon 
 this question, excepting where they show adverse ac- 
 tion. The legality of such a course may well be 
 doubted ; but it is an interesting item of history, and 
 shows that Asbury and the Conference wanted to get 
 rid of any reference to that which the Conference at this 
 time disapproved. The order to erase, however, 
 called attention to the fact that some transaction had 
 taken place, and gave it a sort of immortality. 
 
 Right in connection with this order to expunge is 
 
 See pp. 122, 123. 
 
 2 Garrettsou's Semi-centennial Sermon before the New York Con- 
 ference. 
 
AMERICAN CONFKRKNCB, 1782 TO 1784. 201 
 
 the following in reference to the Rev. Devereux 
 Jarratt : 
 
 "The Conference acknowledge their obligations to the Rev. 
 Mr. Jarratt for his kind and friendly services to the preachers 
 and people from our first entrance into Virginia, and more 
 particularly for attending our Conference in Sussex, in public 
 arid private ; and advise the preachers in the South to consult 
 him and take his advice in the absence of Brother Asbury." 
 
 This is the first resolution of thanks adopted by 
 an American Methodist Conference. 
 
 The nineteenth question was : " Do the brethren 
 in Conference unanimously choose Brother Asbury to 
 act according to Mr. Wesley's original appointment, and 
 preside over the American Conferences and the whole 
 work ? " Ans. " Yes." So the preachers again selected 
 Mr. Asbury to be their chief, or, in other words, again 
 agreed to recognize him as Wesley's general assistant. 
 This was the formal action of the reunited preachers. 
 It was also agreed that " every assistant preacher must 
 so order his circuit, that either himself or one of his 
 helpers may travel with Mr. Asbury through his cir- 
 cuit." It was decided to have four general fasts on 
 the first Thursdays in June, September, January, and 
 April. 
 
 The twenty-second and last question was for the 
 first time propounded, namely : " When and where 
 shall our next Conferences be held ? " and the answer 
 was : " For Virginia the first Tuesday, and in Balti- 
 more the last Wednesday in May." l Lee remarks : 
 " This was the first time that this question was ever 
 
 i Printed Minutes, 1813, pp. 33-37. 
 
 14 
 
202 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 found on the Minutes/' and ."it was now settled and 
 fixed to have two Conferences in each year." ! 
 
 In the interval between this and the next Confer- 
 ence Asbury traveled very extensively through New 
 Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, 
 and North Carolina. On the 5th of April, 1783, he 
 writes: "I heard the news that peace was confirmed 
 between England and America. I had various exer- 
 cises of mind on the occasion. It may cause great 
 changes to take place amongst us, some for the better 
 and some for the worse. It may make against the 
 work of God. Our preachers will be far more likely 
 to settle in the world; and our people, by getting 
 into trade and acquiring wealth, may drink into its 
 spirit. Believing the report to be true, I took some 
 notice of it while I treated on Acts x, 36, at Brother 
 Clayton's, near Halifax, where they were firing their 
 cannons and rejoicing in their way on the occasion." 
 Then he adds : " This day I prevailed with Brother 
 Dickins to go to New York, where I expect him to 
 be far more useful than in his present station." ' 
 
 Asbury was very fearful as to the effect of peace 
 and prosperity on the preachers and people, but Jesse 
 Lee saw good results. He says : 
 
 "The Revolutionary War being now closed, and a general 
 peace established, we could go into all parts of the country 
 without fear ; and we soon began to enlarge our borders, and 
 to preach in many places where we had not been before. We 
 soon saw the fruit of our labors in the new circuits, and in 
 
 i Jesse Lee, Hist, of Methodists, p. 79. 
 Asbury's Journal, 1821, p. 355. 
 
AMERICAN CONFERENCE, 1782 TO 1784. 203 
 
 various parts of the country, even in old places where we had 
 preached in former years with but little success. 
 
 " One thing in particular that opened the way for the spread- 
 ing of the gospel by our preachers was this: during the war, 
 which had continued seven or eight years, many of the members 
 of our societies had, through fear, necessity, or choice, moved 
 into the back settlements and into new parts of the country; and 
 as soon as the National peace was settled and the way was open, 
 they solicited us to come among them ; and by their earnest 
 and frequent petitions, both verbal and written, we were pre- 
 vailed on and encouraged to go among them ; and they were 
 ready to receive us with open hands and willing hearts, and to 
 cry out, ' Blessed is lie that cometh in the name of the Lord. 1 
 
 "The Lord prospered us much in the thinly-settled parts 
 of the country, where, by collecting together the old members 
 of our society and by joining some new ones with them, the 
 work greatly revived, and the heavenly flame of religion 
 spread far and wide." l 
 
 A new era for the Nation and for the Church had 
 begun, and this new era was to bring greater pros- 
 perity to both. As the time for the Conferences of 
 1783 approached, Asbury turned his face north- 
 ward and entered Virginia, and on the 18th of 
 April held a quarterly meeting at White Oak Chapel, 
 as he had the year before ; and Mr. Jarratt preached, 
 and administered the sacrament. 2 
 
 On the 21st, he writes, he " set out for Bucking- 
 ham, to visit some who have been separated from us 
 on account of the ordinances, and my spirit was re- 
 freshed among them;" 3 so the difficulty had not en- 
 tirely disappeared. 
 
 Then he says: "After long rides through Flu- 
 vanna and Orange Circuits, I came to Petersburg on 
 
 i Jesse Lee, History of Methodists, 1810, pp. 84, 85. 
 Asbury 's Journal, 1821, Vol. I, p. 35ft. 1 bid. 
 
204 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 Monday, the 5th of May, and the next day to 
 Ellis's Chapel. Wednesday, 7th, our Conference be- 
 gan at this place. Some young laborers were taken 
 in to assist in spreading the gospel, which greatly 
 prospers in the North. We all agreed in the spirit 
 of African liberty, and strong testimonies were borne 
 in its favor in our love-feast; our affairs were con- 
 ducted in love." 1 That is all he tells us about the 
 Conference at "Ellis's Preaching-house" in 1783. 
 
 Lee states that "in 1783 the eleventh Conference 
 began at Ellis's Meeting-house, Sussex County, Vir- 
 ginia, on the 6th day of May, and adjourned to Balti- 
 more to the 27th day of the same month." 2 Asbury 
 notes that the Baltimore session began on the 26th. 
 His entry is : " Tuesday, 26th. We began our Confer- 
 ence with what preachers were present. On Wednesday 
 we had a full assembly, which lasted until Friday. 
 We had a love-feast, and parted in peace." 3 The 
 heading of the printed Minutes is in harmony with 
 the statement of Lee. It reads : "Held at Ellis's 
 Preaching-house, May 6, 1783, and adjourned to Bal- 
 timore, the 27th." The probability is that the ad- 
 journed session was appointed for the 27th, but that 
 Asbury, finding a number of preachers in Baltimore 
 on the 26th, began the session on that date. The 
 next day there was a full attendance, because the 
 preachers expected the Conference to convene at that 
 time. 
 
 i Asbury's Journal, 1821, Vol. I, p. 356. 
 
 a Jesse Lee, History of the Methodists, 1810, p. 82. 
 
 Asbury's Journal, 1821, Vol. I, p. 356. 
 
AMERICAN CONFERENCE, 1782 TO 1784. 205 
 
 The Rev. Jesse Lee was an interested spectator of 
 the proceedings of the Conference of 1782, and after 
 its adjournment became a traveling preacher. At 
 the Conference of 1783 he was formally received on 
 trial, so that many of his accounts of these early 
 days have the accuracy of an eye-witness. In other 
 particulars he gives the direct evidence of those who 
 were participants. He tells us that " at this Confer- 
 ence the preachers fell upon a new plan in order to 
 provide a support for the preachers' wives. They 
 required such circuits as they thought able to raise 
 a certain sum of money for the support of the preach- 
 ers' wives in other circuits. The minute stands thus : 
 'Q. What sum is to to be raised for the support of 
 the preachers' wives? A. North circuits 200, South 
 circuits 60.' The wives to be provided for, the 
 circuits which were to raise the money, the sum to be 
 raised, and the particular sum to be given to each 
 preacher's wife were all specified in the Minutes. 
 This plan was quite new, and some of the leading 
 men in particular circuits did not approve of it, and 
 thought it unreasonable that they should raise money 
 for a woman they never saw, and whose husband 
 had never preached among them. But the Method- 
 ist cause is but one in every place ; and he who loves 
 his neighbor as himself will feel for every circuit, 
 every preacher, and every preacher's family." l 
 
 The question to which he refers was the eighth in 
 the list. After this came Question 9: "How is this 
 
 i Jesse Lee, History of the Methodists, 1810, p. 83. 
 
206 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 sum to be raised? Ans. Let the preachers make a 
 small collection in all the circuits.'' It will be inter- 
 esting also to quote in this connection the sixteenth 
 and seventeenth questions with their answers : 
 
 " Ques. 16. How many preachers' wives are to be pro- 
 vided for ? 
 
 "Ans. Eleven. 
 
 "Sisters Forrest, Everett, Hagerty, 
 
 Mair, Kimble, Pigman, 
 
 Wyatt, Ellis, Dickins. 
 
 Thomas, Walters, 
 
 " Ques. 17. How is this money to be raised? 
 
 " Answer 
 
 Alleghany 41. 
 
 Berkeley 6 
 
 Fairfax 10 
 
 Frederick 8 
 
 Calvert 6 
 
 Baltimore 30 
 
 Dorchester 12 
 
 Little York 6 
 
 Carried up 821. 
 
 Brought up 821. 
 
 Pennsylvania 30 
 
 East aiid West Jersey 30 
 
 Dover 20 
 
 Somerset 8 
 
 Annamessex 6 
 
 Talbot 10 
 
 Kent 20 
 
 206 1. 
 
 This was the earliest apportionment for a common 
 cause in the history of American Methodism, and was 
 an effort to solve the problem of carrying on an 
 itinerancy when the preachers were married men with 
 families. At first the Methodist ministers in the 
 American itinerancy were single men, who could 
 easily be moved from point to point at will, and could 
 subsist on a meager support ; and in that day .the mar- 
 riage of a Methodist preacher almost invariably meant 
 his retirement from the " traveling ministry/ 7 or his en- 
 trance into the ministry of some other denomination. 
 But as the married ministers increased in number 
 
AMERICAN CONFERENCE, 1782 TO 1784. 207 
 
 and the work grew and became more permanent, it 
 was found necessary to provide a more liberal sup- 
 port, so that the services of experienced ministers 
 might be retained. 
 
 A new minute was made in reference to local 
 preachers who held slaves where they might give 
 them their freedom, as follows : 
 
 " Ques. 10. What shall be done with our local preachers 
 who hold slaves, contrary to the laws which authorize their 
 freedom, in any of the United States? 
 
 " Ans. We will try them another year. In the meantime 
 let every assistant deal faithfully and plainly with every one, 
 and report to the next Conference. It may then be necessary 
 to suspend them. 
 
 In 1780 the Conference disapproved of the distil- 
 lation of spirituous liquors; this Conference expressed 
 itself against making, selling, and drinking them. 
 Thus it was asked : 
 
 " Ques. 11. Should our friends be permitted to make spirit- 
 uous liquors, sell, and drink them in drams? 
 
 "Ans. By no means; we think it wrong in its nature and 
 consequences, and desire all our preachers to teach the people 
 by precept and example to put away this evil." 
 
 Lee naively remarks: "At that time it was but 
 seldom known that a Methodist preacher drank 
 spirituous liquors, unless in cases of extreme ne- 
 cessity." 1 
 
 The previous year four general fast-days were 
 ordered. This year two were appointed, for "the 
 first Friday in January and April; and, for the first 
 
 i Jesse Lee, History of Methodists, p. 83. 
 
208 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 time, thanksgiving-days were decreed, in the follow- 
 ing form : 
 
 " Ques. 14. How many days of thanksgiving shall we have 
 for our public peace, temporal and spiritual prosperity, and for 
 the glorious work of God? / 
 
 "Ans. Two; the first Thursdays in July and October." 
 
 In the Conference of 1778 two general stewards 
 were appointed; but from that time the Minutes 
 make no mention of such officers until this year, 
 when Samuel Owings and John Orick were ap- 
 pointed. 
 
 In answer to the thirteenth question " Ques. 13. 
 What can be done to supply the circuits with preach- 
 ing in time of Conference?" it was decided, to a let 
 the assistants engage as many local preachers as can 
 be depended upon; and such among them as are 
 needy, be allowed for their labor in proportion with 
 the traveling preachers." 
 
 A new regulation was made as to the attendance 
 of the preachers upon the Conference session. It 
 was asked: "What preachers shall attend?" And the 
 answer was: "The assistants, and those who are to 
 be received into connection." This is the first limit- 
 ation upon attendance on Conference. Before, any 
 preacher could attend, and every preacher was ex- 
 pected to be present. Now, only the assistants, or 
 heads of the circuits, with the preachers who were to 
 be formally received into full membership, were ex- 
 pected to attend. The other preachers were to re- 
 main on their circuits. 
 
 Lee remarks that " the intercourse being now 
 
AMERICAN CONFERENCE, 1782 TO 1784. 209 
 
 open between us and England, we thought there was 
 danger of preachers or members' coming from that 
 country, to preach or live among us, whose charac- 
 ters might not be good. , In order that we might 
 not be imposed upon, the following regulation was 
 adopted." l He then quotes the following action : 
 
 " Ques. 12. How shall we conduct ourselves toward any 
 European Methodists, should they come to this continent? 
 
 " Ans. We will not receive them without a letter of 
 recommendation, which we have no reason to doubt the 
 truth of." 
 
 The question this year was not " When and where 
 shall our next Conferences be held?" but "When 
 and where shall our next Conference be held?" and 
 the answer was : " In Baltimore, the 4th Tuesday 
 in May." 2 This was a direct declaration that there 
 was really but one Conference, though for convenience 
 it might meet in two or more sections, or, in other 
 words, hold sessions in different places. 
 
 Mr. Lee tells us that in the latter part of this 
 year Mr. Wesley " wrote a letter to America which 
 agreed with " the Minute in regard to receiving Meth- 
 odists from Europe. 3 This is probably the letter to 
 which Mr. Asbury refers in his journal for December 
 24th. He was at that time in the northeastern part 
 of North Carolina. The entry is as follows : 
 
 " Wednesday, 24. Set out in the rain to Hartfordtown 
 I spoke in a tavern. The people seemed wild and wicked alto- 
 
 i Jesse Lee, History of Methodists, 1810, p. 85. 
 
 * Printed Minutes, 1773-1813, p. 42. 
 
 'Jesse Lee, Hist, of Methodists, 1810, p. 85. 
 
210 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 gether. I journeyed on through the damp weather and reached 
 Pettigrew's about six o'clock. 
 
 " Here I received a letter from Mr. Wesley, in which he 
 directs me to act as general assistant, and to receive no preach- 
 ers from Europe that are not recommended by him, nor any 
 in America who will not submit to me and to the Minutes of 
 the Conference. 
 
 " I preached in Edenton to a gay, inattentive people. I 
 was much pleased with Mr. Pettigrew; I heard him preach, 
 and received the Lord's Supper at his hands. Thence I crossed 
 Chowan River, and preached, journeying through Bertie, 
 Hertford, and Northampton Counties, to considerable congre- 
 gations." l 
 
 Lee gives the following, which he says is "an ex- 
 tract from that letter " written " to America :" 
 
 " BRISTOL, October 3, 1783. 
 
 " 1. Let all of you be determined to abide by the Method- 
 istic doctrine and discipline, published in the four volumes 
 of sermons, and the notes upon the New Testament, together 
 with the Large Minutes of the Conference. 
 
 "2. Beware of preachers coming from Great Britain or 
 Ireland without a full recommendation from me. Three of our 
 traveling preachers here eagerly desired to go to America, but 
 I could not approve of it by any means, because I am not sat- 
 isfied that they thoroughly like either our discipline or doc- 
 trine. I think they difler from our judgment in one or 
 both. Therefore, if these or any others come without my 
 recommendation, take care how you receive them. 
 
 "3. Neither should you receive any preachers, however 
 recommended, who will not be subject to the American Confer- 
 ence, and cheerfully conform to the Minutes both of the En- 
 glish and American Conferences. 
 
 4< 4. I do not wish our American brethren to receive any 
 who make any difficulty of receiving Francis Asbury as the 
 general assistant. 
 
 " Undoubtedly the greatest danger to the work of God in 
 America is likely to arise either from preachers coming from 
 
 i Asbury 's Journal, 1821, Vol. I, p. 363. 
 
AMERICAN CONFERENCE, 1782 TO 1784. 211 
 
 Europe, or from such as will arise from among yourselves 
 speaking perverse things, or bringing in among you new doc- 
 trines, particularly Calvinian. You should guard against this 
 with all possible care, for it is far easier to keep them out than 
 to thrust them out. 
 
 "I commend you all to the grace of God, and am your 
 affectionate friend and brother, JOHN WESLEY." l 
 
 This letter was an assertion of Wesley's authority 
 over the American Methodists. In it Wesley gives 
 an explicit recognition of the regulations in the 
 American Minutes as binding upon the American 
 preachers, and also gives an authoritative recognition 
 of Francis Asbury as his general assistant in America. 
 So Asbury was the head of American Methodism, not 
 only by the agreement of the American preachers, but 
 also by the direct recognition of Mr. Wesley. 
 
 As before stated, the Conference of 1783 fixed 
 Baltimore as the seat of the next Conference, using 
 the singular instead of the plural, and so the heading 
 to the printed Minutes for 1784 states that it "begun 
 at Ellis's Preaching-house, Virginia, April 30, 1784, 
 and ended at Baltimore, May 28th, following." That 
 is to say, it was the same Conference. As Lee re- 
 marks: "In 1784 the twelfth Conference began at 
 Ellis's chapel, in Virginia,. on the 30th day of April, 
 and ended in Baltimore on the 28th of May. It was 
 considered as but one Conference, although they met 
 first in Virginia, and then adjourned to Baltimore, 
 
 i Jesse Lee, Hist, of Methodists, 1810, pp. 85, 86 ; Rev. James Youngs, 
 A. M., Hist, of Rise and Progress of Methodism, New Haven, 1830, pp. 
 280, 281 ; W. P. Strickland, Life of Francis Asbury, New York, 1858, pp. 
 131, 132; A. Stevens, History of Methodist Episcopal Church, 1865, 
 Vol. II, pp. 131, 132. 
 
212 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 where the business was finished." l Asbury records 
 very little that occurred at the first session of this 
 year, simply remarking that it lasted two days; that 
 Mr. O'Kelly "gave a good sermon/ 7 and Mr. Jarratt 
 " gave a good discourse," and that " the business was 
 conducted with uncommon love and unity." 2 
 
 All that he says about the session at Baltimore is 
 found in four lines : " Tuesday, 25. Our Confer- 
 ence began, all in peace. William Glendenning had 
 been devising a plan to lay me aside, or at least to 
 abridge my powers. Mr. Wesley's letter settled the 
 point, and all was happy. The Conference rose on 
 Friday morning." 3 
 
 It would appear from this that Mr. Glendenning, 
 who had come from England in 1774, and entered 
 the Conference on trial in 1775, was not satisfied with 
 the great power possessed by Mr. Asbury, and it is 
 probable that he was an exponent of the views of 
 others; but the training of years, in respect for and 
 submission to Mr. Wesley, caused him, and those he 
 represented, to abandon their effort to depose Mr. 
 Asbury or to limit his authority, when there was pro- 
 duced a letter from Mr. Wesley, in which he practi- 
 cally reappointed Mr. Asbury to be his general as- 
 sistant in America. This doubtless was the letter 
 already quoted. Dr. Stevens says : " The letter by 
 which Asbury silenced the opposition of Glendenning 
 was addressed by Wesley to the Conference." 4 That 
 
 i Rev. Jesse Lee, History of Methodists, 1810, p. 86. 
 
 Asbury 's Journal, 1821, Vol. I, p. 367. * Ibid. 
 
 * A. Stevens, History of the M. E. Church, 1865, Vol. II, p. 131. 
 
AMERICAN CONFERENCE, 1782 TO 1784. 213 
 
 the letter was addressed to the Conference is not im- 
 probable, but there is no evidence of that excepting in 
 the form of the letter. Lee says Wesley " wrote a letter 
 to America." 1 And it may be that it was addressed 
 to the American Methodists generally, and sent to 
 the care of Mr. Asbury. It is a little singular that 
 Wesley's works do not contain this letter and that 
 Asbury does not give it in his journal, at least in 
 substance. Even Lee does not profess to present the 
 entire letter, but only that which he calls " an ex- 
 tract." Youngs, Strickland, and Stevens doubtless 
 copy from Jesse Lee's History, and he appears to be 
 the only one of that day who professes to give even 
 an extract from the letter. 
 
 It is quite evident, however, that the whole or 
 part of such a letter was read to the Conference. This 
 is implied in Asbury 's reference, and Lee, after refer- 
 ring to certain transactions in the Conference, remarks 
 that u The Conference then adopted the directions 
 which Mr. Wesley had written in the latter part of 
 the preceding year, and formed a rule to take in the 
 substance of that letter. We agreed that if any 
 European Methodist preachers should come over, rec- 
 ommended by Mr. Wesley, and would be subject to 
 the American Conference, preach the Methodist doc- 
 trine, keep the circuits they were appointed to, and 
 be subject to Francis Asbury as general assistant, 
 while he stands approved by Mr. Wesley and the 
 Conference, we will receive them; but if they walk 
 contrary to the above directions, no appointment 
 
 i Lee's History of the Methodists, 1810, p. 85. 
 
214 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 shall prevent them from being excluded from our 
 connection." 1 Lee's statement is sufficiently accurate 
 for general purposes ; but the exact action of the 
 Conference is as follows: 
 
 " Ques. 21. How shall we conduct ourselves towards 
 European preachers ? 
 
 "-4ns. If they are recommended by Mr. Wesley, will be 
 subject to the American Conference, preach the doctrine taught 
 in the four volumes of Sermons and Notes on the New Testa- 
 ment, keep the circuits they are appointed to, follow the di- 
 rections of the London and American Minutes, and be subject 
 to Francis Asbury as general assistant, whilst he stands ap- 
 proved by Mr. Wesley and the Conference, we shall receive 
 them; but if they walk contrary to the above directions, no 
 ancient right or appointment shall prevent their being ex- 
 cluded from our connection." 2 
 
 This acknowledges the authority of Mr. Wesley, 
 and under him the authority of Mr. Asbury. It 
 recognizes the Large English Minutes as law in 
 America as well as in Great Britain, and indorses 
 the American Minutes as binding upon those who 
 serve in the United States. It will be noticed that 
 there is a little intimation of power as conceded to 
 " the Conference " in relation to Mr. Asbury. The 
 " European preachers " were to " be subject to 
 Francis Asbury as general assistant, whilst he stands 
 approved by Mr. Wesley and the Conference" as 
 though Asbury might be removed from office when- 
 ever "the Conference" disapproved of his course. 
 The intimation is expressed timidly and a little am- 
 biguously, but it is like the early light of morning 
 
 1 Jesse Lee, History of Methodists, 1810, pp. 88, 89. 
 
 2 Printed Minutes, American Conferences, 1773-1813, p. 48. 
 
AMERICAN CONFERENCE, 1782 TO 1784. 215 
 
 indicating the coming day. Perhaps the phrase was 
 a concession which grew out of discussion started 
 by Glendenning's opposition to Asbury's absolute 
 power a suggestion to the effect that the right of 
 government naturally belonged to the Conference, and 
 that some day it might assert its natural right to 
 control. Asbury had been chosen and empowered 
 by the Conference, and, therefore, the answer seems 
 to mean that the Conference could take back that 
 which it had given, and that, if it did so, Asbury 
 would thereby be deposed from his superintendency ; 
 but at the same time the answer acknowledges the 
 authority of Mr. Wesley. 
 
 The Minutes show that the Conference of 1784 
 considered a number of practical matters. The ques- 
 tion was asked, " How shall we reform our singing?" 
 and the answer was, "Let all our preachers who 
 have any knowledge of the notes improve it by 
 learning to sing true themselves, and keeping close to 
 Mr. Wesley's tunes and hymns," an answer that 
 might surprise those who do not know that the early 
 Methodists sung "by note," and that Mr. Wesley 
 published music for them to sing. Even in that day 
 the musical part of the service was deemed of great 
 moment. 
 
 Financial matters had their share of attention. 
 
 Question 15 was : " How shall we enlarge the Con- 
 ference collection to supply the wants of the preachers?" 
 
 Answer : " Let there be a public collection in all 
 the principal places in the circuits, and brought to 
 Conference." 
 
216 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 Question 16, " What preachers' wives are to be 
 provided for?" brought the answer: 
 
 " Sisters Wyatt, Scott, O'Kelly, 
 
 Moore, Forrest, Drumgole, 
 
 Thomas, Pigman, .Dickins; 
 
 Mair, Hagerty, 
 
 Ellis, Morris, 
 
 making thirteen as against eleven of the year before. 
 The names of Mrs. Moore, Mrs. Scott, Mrs. Morris, 
 Mrs. O'Kelly, and Mrs. Drumgole are new, while 
 the names of Mrs. Everett, Mrs. Kimble, and Mrs. 
 Watters, which were in the list of the preceding 
 year, do not appear in this. As in the previous 
 year, so in this, the amount for their support was 
 apportioned to the circuits, and there was added the 
 note : " Let every assistant preacher see that this 
 money is collected and paid quarterly." For the 
 first time, there is a distinction made as to the sup- 
 port of Mr. Asbury. It was asked : 
 
 " Qu.es. 18. What shall be allowed the General Assistant 
 yearly ? 
 
 " Ans. Twenty-four pounds, with his expenses for horses 
 and traveling, brought to and paid at Conference." 
 
 In 1774 it was agreed " for every assistant to 
 make a general collection at Easter in the circuits 
 where they labor, to be applied to the sinking of the 
 debts on the houses and relieving the preachers in 
 want." This year it was asked : 
 
 " Ques. 10. What can be done towards erecting new 
 chapels, and discharging the debts on those already built ? 
 
 " Ans. Let the assistant preacher put a yearly subscrip- 
 tion through the circuits, and insist upon every member that 
 is not supported by charity to give something ; let them sub- 
 
AMKRICAN CONFERENCE, 1782 TO 1784. 217 
 
 scribe the first quarter, and pay the second ; and the money to 
 be applied by two general stewards." 
 
 This was the first General Church Extension So- 
 ciety in American Methodism. There was a new ar- 
 rangement in the matter of discipline : 
 
 " Ques. 8. How shall we keep good order among the 
 preachers, t and provide for contingencies in the vacancy of 
 Conference, and absence of the general assistant ? t 
 
 "Ans. Let any three assistants do what may be thought 
 most eligible, call to an account, change, suspend, or receive a 
 preacher till Conference." 
 
 Even in that early day there were places which 
 were difficult to sustain, and so it was asked : 
 
 " Ques. 9. What can be done with those places we have 
 long tried, and appear to grow worse every year ? 
 
 " Ans. If you are obliged to make use of such places, to 
 get to more valuable ones, appoint no public preaching, but 
 only meet society in the evening, or speak to the black 
 people." 
 
 It was deemed necessary to warn the people 
 against extravagance in dress, and to urge the preach- 
 ers to set the people an example in this particular, 
 as will be seen by the following question and answer : 
 
 " Ques. 11. How shall we prevent superfluity in dress 
 among our people ? 
 
 " Ans. Let the preachers carefully avoid everything of 
 this kind in themselves, and speak frequently and faithfully 
 against it in all our societies." 
 
 The anti-slavery sentiment of the Conference 
 again asserted itself, as follows : 
 
 " Ques. 12. What shall we do with our friends that will 
 buy and sell slaves ? 
 
 "Ans. If they buy with no other design than to hold 
 them as slaves, and have been previously warned, they shall 
 be expelled, and permitted to sell on no consideration." 
 
 15 
 
218 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 " Ques. 13. What shall we do with our local preachers 
 who will not emancipate their slaves in the States where the 
 laws admit it ? 
 
 " Ans. Try those in Virginia another year, and suspend 
 the preachers in Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New 
 Jersey. 
 
 " Ques. 22. "What shall be done with our traveling preachers 
 that now are, or hereafter shall be, possessed of slaves, and re- 
 fuse to, manumit them where the law permits ? 
 
 " Ans. Employ them no more." 
 
 Lee remarks : " However good the intention of 
 the preachers might be in framing these rules, we are- 
 well assured that they never were of any particu- 
 lar service to our societies. Some of the slaves, how- 
 ever, obtained their freedom in consequence of these 
 rules." l But then he wrote in 1809. 
 
 For the first time it was asked : " What preachers 
 have died this year?" And the answer was, "Henry 
 Medcalf and William Wright," the first of a long line 
 which has appeared in the Minutes to this day. 
 
 A new regulation was made in reference to fast 
 days: 
 
 " Ques. 23. How shall we more effectually appoint and keep 
 days of fasting ? 
 
 "Ans. By writing it upon every class-paper, to be the first 
 Friday after every quarterly meeting." 
 
 The twenty-fourth and last question was : " When 
 and where shall our next Conferences be held?" and 
 the answer was : " The first at Green Hills (North 
 Carolina) Friday, 29th, and Saturday, 30th, of April; 
 
 i Rev. Jesse Lee, History of Methodists, 1810, p. 88. 
 
AMERICAN CONFERENCE, 1782 TO 1784. 219 
 
 the second in Virginia, at Conference Chapel, May 
 8th ; the third in Maryland, Baltimore, the 15th day 
 of June." 1 
 
 So that now the work has increased to such an 
 extent that it is necessary to have three meeting- 
 places for the Conference one in North Carolina, 
 one in Virginia, and one in Maryland. 
 
 Lee says: "Here end the Minutes that were for- 
 merly taken and kept in manuscript, and not printed 
 until 1795. After this all our Annual Minutes were 
 printed every year." 5 That is to say, the "Minutes 
 taken from 1773 to 1784 inclusive were, kept in man- 
 uscript until 1795. Beginning with the Conference 
 of 1785, the Minutes of each Conference were pub- 
 lished annually. In 1795 the printed Minutes were 
 collected, and with the Minutes from 1773 to 1784, 
 were printed in one volume, 3 and in 1813 the Min- 
 utes of all the Conferences from 1773 down to that 
 date were published in a single volume. 
 
 It was the end of the period of manuscript 
 Minutes, and, as will be seen, it was the end of 
 the Colonial period, so to speak, of American 
 Methodism. 
 
 The American colonies had become an independ- 
 ent nation and American Methodism was about to be- 
 come an independent Church. 
 
 But before we take leave of this preliminary stage 
 of American Methodism, let us glance at the picture 
 
 i Minutes 1773-1813, pp. 43-48. 
 
 a Jesse Lee, Hist, of Methodists, 1810, p. 89. Id., p. 45. 
 
220 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 of the Conference of 1784, as given us by the Rev. 
 Thomas Ware. He says : 
 
 "In the spring of 1784, the Conference sat at Baltimore, 
 which was the first I attended. There was quite a number of 
 preachers present. Although there were but few on whose 
 heads time had begun to snow, yet several of them appeared 
 to be wayworn and weather-beaten into premature old age. 
 The whole number of itinerant preachers in America at that 
 time was eighty -three ; stations and circuits, sixty-four ; and 
 members in society, fourteen thousand nine hundred and 
 eighty-eight. I doubt whether there ever has been a Confer- 
 ence among us in which an equal number could be found in 
 proportion to the whole so dead to the world and so gifted 
 and enterprising as were present at the Conference of 1784. 
 They had much to suffer at that early period of our history 
 and especially during the Revolutionary struggle. 
 
 " Among these pioneers, Asbury,by common consent, stood 
 first and chief. There was something in his person, his eye, his 
 mien, and in the music of his voice which interested all who 
 saw and heard him. He possessed much natural wit, and was 
 capable of the severest satire; but grace and good sense so* 
 far predominated, that he never descended to anything be- 
 neath the dignity of a man and a Christian minister. In 
 prayer he excelled. Had he been equally eloquent in preaching, 
 he would have excited universal admiration as a pulpit orator. 
 But when he was heard for the first time, the power and unc- 
 tion with which he prayed would naturally so raise the expec- 
 tation of his auditors that they were liable to be disappointed 
 with his preaching; for, although he always preached well, in 
 his sermons he seldom, if ever, reached that high .and com- 
 prehensive flow of thought and expression that expansive 
 and appropriate diction which always characterized his 
 prayers. This may be accounted for, in part at least, from the 
 fact stated by the late Rev. Freeborn Garrettson in preaching 
 his funeral sermon. * He prayed,' said the venerable Garrett- 
 son, ' the best, and he prayed the most of any man I ever 
 knew.' His long-continued rides prevented his preaching as 
 often as some others ; but he could find a throne of grace, if 
 not a congregation, upon the road. Next to him, in the esti- 
 
AMERICAN CONFERENCE, 1782 TO 1784. 221 
 
 mation of many, stood the placid Tunnell, the philosophical 
 Gill, and the pathetic Pedicord. It would be difficult to de- 
 termine to which of these primitive missionaries, as men of 
 eminent talents and usefulness, the preference should be 
 given." l 
 
 Such is the passing glance which a contemporary 
 gives us of the Conference of that day. There were 
 other noted men he does not take time to point out; 
 but above them all looms the strongest character, 
 namely, that of Asbury. In spite of the pressing de- 
 mands of the preachers and people for that which was 
 deemed absolutely necessary for their Christian wel- 
 fare, he had held American Methodism in allegiance 
 to what he believed was right. Though at one time 
 a seceder from the regular Conference, which repre- 
 sented the majority^ he had, by his mighty will, swung 
 the regular Conference into line with his seceding 
 Conference, and made them one. He evidently be- 
 lieved that it was the duty of Methodists in America 
 to remain in obedience to Mr. Wesley, and in sub- 
 mission to what he understood were the traditions of 
 early Wesleyan Methodism as to the sacraments. 
 Many will hold that under such circumstances of 
 extreme need he was in error ; but whether he was 
 right or wrong, it must be admitted that what he ac- 
 complished was a great achievement, showing vast 
 personal power on his part, and on the part of the 
 people great devotion to Wesley and traditional 
 Methodism. 
 
 Whatever may be thought of his ideas or the 
 
 i Autobiography of Rev. Thomas Ware, New York, 1840, p. 83. 
 
222 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 means employed, the fact remains tbat through his 
 efforts American Methodism at this time presented a 
 united Conference in allegiance to Mr. Wesley, and 
 awaiting his direction. 
 
 The Conference had little if any actual power in a 
 legal sense. Indeed, it may be said that its only 
 power was in the influence of the expressed sentiments 
 of its members. 
 
 With the exception of a short interval, in which 
 the Virginia Conference experimented in the matter 
 of self-government, the American Conference had no 
 real control of its own affairs. 
 
 It began in 1773 with a recognition of Mr. Wesley 
 and the Large English Minutes. It conceded the right 
 of Mr. Wesley to direct, and, with great emphasis, con- 
 fessed its duty to obey his commands. There was 
 something in the nature of home rule; for regulations 
 were made for local affairs without direct appeal to 
 Mr. Wesley, but these were made because of necessi- 
 ties arising out of new conditions in the new country ; 
 but even they were subordinate to Wesley, and not 
 contrary to the English Minutes. 
 
 Even Mr. Asbury himself was chosen by the 
 preachers, in several sessions of the Conference, on the 
 ground that he had at one time been appointed by 
 Mr. Wesley as his assistant in America; and, on the 
 same principle, as the supposed representative of 
 Wesley, they conceded to him power similar to that 
 which Wesley himself would have used had he been 
 in America. Thus, on the question as to how far As- 
 bury's power as general assistant should extend, they 
 
AMERICAN CONFERENCE, 1782 TO 1784. 223 
 
 agreed that " on hearing every preacher for and 
 against what is in debate, the right of determination 
 shall rest with him according to the Minutes." 1 It 
 would appear, therefore, that the Conference had no 
 right to decide, though it might debate. Doubtless 
 the opinions expressed by the members of the Confer- 
 ence modified Asbury's views in regard to many mat- 
 ters, yet he remained the authority to^decide, and they 
 took no action against his will. The members of the 
 Conference had a right to speak for or against any 
 proposition, but "the right of determination" rested 
 with Mr. Asbury. It was personal government of a 
 very absolute character. 
 
 In the primitive conditions of the organization, 
 and the peculiar conditions of the country at that 
 time, it had some redeeming features, for it gave 
 unity to the work amid unsettled surroundings 
 and a shifting ministry. Times, however, were 
 changing, and methods likewise must change; and, 
 notwithstanding the personal authority of Asbury, 
 there were already indications in the expressed feel- 
 ings of individuals, and even in the under-current of 
 the Conference, that pointed to a time when the Con- 
 ference would be supreme. 
 
 i Printed Minutes, 1773-1813, p. 20. 
 
CHAPTER VII. 
 
 WESLEY'S PLAN FOR THE REORGANIZATION OF 
 AMERICAN METHODISM. 
 
 THE year 1784 brings us to the time when Wes- 
 ley drew, signed, and enrolled the Deed of Dec- 
 laration by which the Conference in Great Britain 
 was legally defined, and by which, on the death of 
 Mr. Wesley in 1791, the Conference was invested 
 with supreme governing power. 
 
 Having provided for the perpetuity of British 
 Methodism, he again turns his thoughts toward 
 America. This was in harmony with the principles 
 which controlled him ; for if it was necessary to devise 
 some plan to perpetuate Methodism in Britain it was 
 equally urgent that some plan should be provided for 
 the branch across the Atlantic. 
 
 Haste was necessary"; for Wesley was eighty-one 
 years of age, and the appeals from America had been 
 many and pressing. The mass of the American 
 Methodists were without the sacraments; for there 
 were very few clergymen of the Church of England 
 left in the new country. Throughout the land there 
 was general sacramental destitution. Children and 
 adults went unbaptized, and the people were not per- 
 mitted to partake of the Lord's Supper. Now was 
 'the time for Wesley, the recognized head of the 
 American Methodists, to act. If he delayed, death 
 224 
 
WESLEY'S PiyAN FOR REORGANIZATION. 225 
 
 might prevent his acting. If he hesitated longer, the 
 preachers and societies which Asbury had held to- 
 gether might be scattered and lost; for it was only 
 their reverence for Wesley that induced the majority 
 to yield their convictions and await his action. 
 
 The time had come; for English ecclesiastical 
 law no longer applied to that part of North America. 
 The former Colonies were now an independent coun- 
 try, and the Church of "England had no authority in 
 the United States of America. Wesley recognized 
 not only the changed political condition of the new 
 country, but also its changed ecclesiastical status. He 
 therefore felt free to act; for his regard for the English 
 State Church, which had heretofore restrained him, 
 did not bind him as to a country where that State 
 Church did not exist. 
 
 He had long held that bishops and presbyters were 
 the same clerical order, and, as he reasoned, had "the 
 same right to ordain." As he could not induce the 
 English bishops to ordain any of his preachers for 
 America, he determined to exercise the power which 
 he believed vested in presbyters ; so he selected 
 Richard Whatcoat and Thomas Yasey as the persons 
 he would ordain and send to America. 
 
 In his journal, under date of September 1, 1784, 
 he says: "Being now clear in my own mind, I took 
 a step which I had long weighed in my mind, and 
 appointed Mr. Whatcoat and Mr. Yasey to go and 
 serve the desolate sheep in America, which I verily 
 believe, will be much to the glory of God.' 7 1 In 
 
 i Wesley's Works, Amer. Ed., Vol. IV, p. 602. 
 
226 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 these ordinations he was assisted by the Rev. Thomas 
 Coke, LL. D., and the Rev. James Creighton, 1 both of 
 whom had been regularly ordained in the Church of 
 England, and both of these presbyters appear in the 
 list of members of the English Wesleyan Conference 
 as mentioned in the Deed of Declaration. 
 
 Referring to this matter about two years later, 
 Wesley says: "Judging this [namely, the peculiar 
 condition of the societies in America after the war] 
 to be a case of necessity, I took a step which, for 
 peace and quietness, I had refrained from taking many 
 years; I exercised that power which I am fully per- 
 suaded the great Shepherd and' Bishop of the Church 
 has given me. I appointed three of our laborers to 
 go and help them, by not only preaching the word of 
 God, but likewise administering the Lord's Supper 
 and baptizing their children throughout that vast 
 tract of land." 2 
 
 As we have in another work discussed Wesley's 
 right to ordain under such circumstances, we will not 
 present the arguments in this place. 8 
 
 Having ordained these ministers for America, it is 
 plain that he intended that the Methodists in America 
 should receive the sacraments from their own ordained 
 ministers, and that in this particular they should be 
 independent of all other ecclesiastical bodies. 
 
 He intended not only that they should have the 
 
 1 Coke and Moore's Life of Wesley, p. 459 ; Drew's Life of Coke, p. 
 73; Tyerman's Life of Wesley, Vol. Ill, p. 434. 
 
 English Minutes, 1786 ; Drew's Life of Coke, Amer. Ed., 1847, p. 73. 
 
 See The Evolution of Episcopacy ^nd Organic Methodism, by Rev. 
 T. B. Neely, Ph. D., D. D M New York, 1888, pp. 86-234. 
 
WKSLEY'S PLAN FOR REORGANIZATION. 227 
 
 sacraments from their own ministers, but also that 
 they should have a supervisions! government ; and so 
 he " appointed Dr. Coke and Mr. Francis Asbury to 
 be joint superintendents over our brethren in North 
 America," l thus expressing his desire that there 
 should be a superintendency to supervise or oversee 
 the work in America. To this office Mr. Wesley set 
 apart the Rev. Dr. Coke, and gave him a certificate 
 to that effect in the following testimonial letter: 
 
 "To all to whom these presents shall come, JOHN 
 WESLEY, late Fellow of Lincoln College, in Oxford, 
 Presbyter of the Church of England, seudeth greeting : 
 
 " Whereas, many of the people in the Southern 
 provinces of North America who desire to continue 
 under my care, and still adhere to the doctrine and 
 discipline of the Church of England, are greatly dis- 
 tressed for want of ministers to administer the sacra- 
 ments of baptism and the Lord's Supper according 
 to the usage of the same Church; and whereas, there 
 does not appear to be any other way of supplying 
 them with ministers 
 
 "Know all men, that I, John Wesley, think my- 
 self to be providentially called at this time to set 
 apart some persons for the work of the ministry in 
 America; and therefore, under the protection of Al- 
 mighty God, and with a single eye to his glory, I 
 have this day set apart as a superintendent, by the 
 imposition of my hands and prayer (being assisted by 
 other ordained ministers), Thomas Coke, Doctor of 
 Civil Law, a presbyter of the Church of England, 
 
 1 Circular Letter to American Methodists, 1784. See pp. 231-234. 
 
228 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 and a man whom I judge to be well qualified for that 
 great work. And I do hereby recommend him to all 
 whom it may concern as a fit person to preside over 
 the flock of Christ. 
 
 "In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my 
 hand and seal, this second day of September, in the 
 year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and 
 Eighty-four. JOHN WESLEY." l 
 
 It will be noticed that this arrangement was in- 
 tended for the "Southern provinces of North 
 America ;" that is to say, the part not under British 
 control, or, in other words, the United States of 
 America. The letter also shows that he understood 
 that the American Methodists adhered "to the doc- 
 trine and discipline of the Church of England," but 
 he does not intimate that he desires them to be a 
 part of the Church of England. On the contrary, in 
 another letter he declares they are " totally disen- 
 tangled " from that body, and says that he " dare not 
 entangle them again." 2 There seems to be, however, 
 an intimation that he desired them to be somewhat 
 like the Anglican Church in " doctrine and disci- 
 pline," and it is well known that he preferred the 
 episcopal form of government. 
 
 It must be inferred, also, that Mr. Wesley intended 
 that the new superintendency should be different from 
 the position of the former assistant or general assist- 
 ant. The change of name indicates a change in the 
 character of the office, and the certificate given to Dr. 
 
 1 Samuel Drew, Life of Rev. Thomas Coke, LL. D., New "York, 1847, 
 p. 74. 
 
 2 Wesley's Circular Letter to American Methodists, 1784, p. 233. 
 
WESLEY'S PLAN FOR REORGANIZATION. 229 
 
 Coke states that the superintendent is "to preside 
 over the flock of Christ." His office, therefore, was 
 a presidency, and it is interesting to note that the 
 phrase " the flock of Christ " occurs in the Church of 
 England service for consecrating a bishop, where the 
 person being made a bishop is exhorted to "be to 
 the flock of Christ a shepherd," and, in the same 
 service, the lesson from the twentieth chapter of 
 Acts contains the passage, " Take heed therefore unto 
 yourselves, and to all the flock, over which the Holy 
 Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the Church of 
 God." "The flock of Christ "was the Church. What, 
 therefore, could Mr. Wesley mean, if he did not mean 
 that the superintendent was to preside over or over- 
 see a Church? 
 
 Doubtless Mr. Wesley had strong reasons for set- 
 ting apart Dr. Coke in the manner he did, but it is 
 not necessary at this time to dwell upon the details. 1 
 
 Mr. Wesley intended not only that his followers 
 in America should have an ordained ministry and a 
 supervisional government, but also a formulated creed, 
 and so he provided Articles of Religion. These Arti- 
 cles were taken from the Thirty-nine Articles of the 
 Church of England ; but some of the Anglican Articles 
 were stricken out, and parts of others were eliminated, 
 so that the Articles he prepared for the American 
 Methodists numbered only twenty-four. 2 It follows, 
 
 1 For fuller treatment see Evolution of Episcopacy and Organic 
 Methodism, by Rev. T. B. Neely, Ph.D., D. D., New York, 1888, pp. 
 213-229. 
 
 2 Wesley's Sunday Service of the Methodists in North America, 
 London, 1784. 
 
230 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 therefore, that as his Twenty-four Articles differed 
 from the Anglican Thirty-nine, Wesley intended the 
 creed of the American Methodists should thus differ 
 from that of the Established Church of England. 
 
 Wesley also prepared a regular Service-book from 
 the English Book of Common Prayer. This was 
 called " The Sunday Service of the Methodists in 
 North America," and was printed in London in 1784, 
 and was brought to America by Dr. Coke. This Ser- 
 vice-book had morning and evening prayers for 
 Sabbath mornings and evenings, and a Litany which 
 was to be read on Wednesdays and Fridays. 1 
 
 It also contained prayers and services for special 
 occasions. Of these the most important were the 
 forms of service for sacramental seasons, and the 
 forms of service for setting apart and ordaining per- 
 sons to the ministry. 
 
 This certainly meant that Wesley intended Amer- 
 ican Methodism to be put on a different footing. He 
 appointed superintendents and sent three ordained 
 ministers. That he did not mean that they should be 
 the only ordained ministers is manifest from the fact 
 that he furnished them with services to be used in 
 ordaining others, so that those he sent were to be but 
 the beginning of the line of ordained American 
 Methodist ministers. 
 
 That he did not mean this should be a temporary 
 arrangement is proved by the Liturgy, by the forms 
 for the sacramental occasions, and by the Articles of 
 
 1 The Service-book was used in the Churches for years, but grad- 
 ually fell into disuse. 
 
FOR" REORGANIZATION. 231 
 
 Religion to which we have referred. The American 
 Methodists were to have not only a more formal gov- 
 ernment, but also symbols of faith, fixed forms for the 
 various services, with their own ordained clergy, not 
 only to preach as evangelists, but to administer the 
 sacraments as pastors. 
 
 What could this mean unless it meant that the 
 Methodists in the United States of America were to 
 become a Church which would have some resemblance 
 to the Church of England, but should be as dif- 
 frent from that Church as the new Service-book 
 was different from the Book of Common Prayer on 
 which it was based, but from which it differed 
 in a number of vital particulars ? What could it 
 mean but that while it had a system of oversight, 
 it should be a Church* differing from the modern 
 Church of England in its doctrine of episcopal orders 
 as Wesley did in his views which he formulated in the 
 statement "that bishops and presbyters are the same 
 order, and consequently have the same right to ordain ?" 
 
 But let Mr. Wesley speak for himself. With Dr. 
 Coke, he sent a Circular Letter to the American Meth- 
 odists, and a careful study of this letter will reveal 
 his intention. It is as follows : 
 
 " BRISTOL, September 10, 1784. 
 
 "To DR. COKE, MR. ASBURY, and our Brethren in North 
 America, 
 
 " 1. By a very uncommon train of providences, many 
 of the provinces of North America are totally dis- 
 joined from their mother country, and erected into in- 
 dependent States. The English Government has no 
 
232 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 authority over them, either civil or ecclesiastical, any 
 more than over the States of Holland. A civil 
 authority is exercised over them, partly by the Con- 
 gress, partly by the provincial Assemblies ; but no one 
 either exercises or claims any ecclesiastical authority at 
 all. In this peculiar situation, some thousands of the 
 inhabitants of these States desire my advice ; and in 
 compliance with their desire, I have drawn up a little 
 sketch. 
 
 " 2. Lord King's 'Account of the Primitive Church ' 
 convinced me many years ago that bishops and pres- 
 byters are the same order, and, consequently, have the 
 same right to ordain. For many years I have been 
 importuned, from time to time, to exercise this right 
 by ordaining part of our traveling preachers; but I 
 have still refused, not only for peace's sake but be- 
 cause I was determined as little as possible to violate 
 the established order of the National Church to which 
 I belonged. 
 
 " 3. But the case is widely different between Eng- 
 land and North America. Here there are bishops who 
 have a legal jurisdiction; in America there are none, 
 neither any parish ministers ; so that for some hundred 
 miles together there is none either to baptize or to ad- 
 minister the Lord's Supper. Here, therefore, my scru- 
 ples are at an end ; and I conceive myself at full lib- 
 erty, as I violate no order and invade no man's right 
 by appointing and sending laborers into the harvest. 
 
 " 4. I have accordingly appointed Dr. Coke and 
 Mr. Francis Asbury to be joint superintendents over 
 our brethren in North America, as also Richard 
 
WESLEY'S PlvAN FOR REORGANIZATION. 233 
 
 Whatcoat and Thomas Yasey to act as elders among 
 them, by baptizing and administering the Lord's Sup- 
 per. And I have prepared a liturgy little differing from 
 that of the Church of England (I think the best consti- 
 tuted National Church in the world), which I ad- 
 vise all the traveling preachers to use on the Lord's- 
 day, in all the congregations reading the Litany 
 only on Wednesdays and Fridays, and praying ex- 
 tempore on all other days. I also advise the elders 
 to administer the Supper of the Lord on every 
 Lord's-day. 
 
 " 5. If any one will point out a more rational and 
 Scriptural way of feeding and guiding those poor 
 sheep in the wilderness, I will gladly embrace it. 
 At present I can not see any better method than that 
 I have taken. 
 
 " 6. It has, indeed, been proposed to desire the 
 English bishops to ordain part of our preachers for 
 America. But to this I object: (1) I desired the 
 Bishop of London to ordain only one, but could not 
 prevail. (2) If they consented, we know the slow- 
 ness of their proceedings; but the matter admits of 
 no delay. (3) If they would ordain them now, they 
 would likewise expect to govern them; and how 
 grievously would this entangle us! (4) As our 
 American brethren are now totally disentangled both 
 from the State and from the English hierarchy, we 
 dare not entangle them again either with the one or 
 the other. They are now at full liberty simply to 
 follow the Scriptures and the primitive Church ; and 
 we judge it best that they should stand fast in that 
 
 16 
 
234 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 liberty wherewith God has so strangely made them 
 free. JOHN WESLEY." l 
 
 Wesley's own words show that he intended 
 American Methodism to be separate from the Church 
 of England and from all other ecclesiastical bodies 
 in the United States ; that the American Methodists 
 should have their own ordained clergy, and all the 
 privileges and ordinances a complete Church could 
 give ; that they should differ from the Church of 
 England and other ecclesiastical organizations ac- 
 cording to the peculiarities of the polity, the doc- 
 trines, and the services he had given them ; and 
 that they should have a supervisory government, 
 with superintendents overseeing the work and pre- 
 siding over presbyters, but that the government 
 should be on a presbyterial basis, with a superintend- 
 ency of a presbyterial order. 
 
 W T esley ? s declaration " that bishops and presby- 
 ters are the same order, and consequently have the 
 same right to ordain," was not only in harmony with 
 the teaching of the New Testament, but also was abso- 
 lutely necessary to give consistency to his course in 
 ordaining ministers. What is more, it became the 
 basal principle of Methodist polity as to clerical orders, 
 so that Methodism holds there is no higher order 
 than that of the presbyter, and considers the right of 
 ordination as vesting in the presbyters; and, hence, 
 that a bishop is simply a superintending presbyter. 
 
 i Wesley's Works, Araer. Ed., Vol. VII, pp. 311, 312 ; Drew's Life of 
 Dr. Coke, New York, 1847, pp. 75, 76 ; Tyerman's Life of Wesley, VoL 
 III, pp. 435, 436. 
 
WESI/EY'S PLAN FOR REORGANIZATION. 235 
 
 A religious body with all these arrangements per- 
 taining to the organization and work of a Christian 
 Church could be nothing less than a Church. So Dr. 
 Coke observes that " Mr. Wesley, after long delibera- 
 tion, saw it his duty to form his society in America 
 into an independent Church ; but he loved the most 
 excellent Liturgy of the Church of England ; he 
 loved its rites and ceremonies, and therefore adopted 
 them in most instances for the present case." 1 
 
 In view of the fact that Mr. Wesley considered 
 the Church of England as no longer in "the Southern 
 provinces of North America," it may be asked whether 
 he did not intend the reorganized American Meth- 
 odist body to be the real successor of the Anglican 
 Church in the United States. The Liturgy, the 
 Articles of Religion, and the various forms of service 
 appear to give some support to such a suggestion. 
 
 However that may be, it is plain that he intended 
 American Methodism should have everything essen- 
 tial to a complete Church, and that its members should 
 not be lacking in any Church privilege. 
 
 In these arrangements we find Wesley's answer 
 to the many appeals for aid that had come time and 
 again from America. 
 
 1 The Rev. Dr. Coke's Sermon at the Consecration of Asbury. 
 
CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 THE ORGANIZING CONFERENCE OF 1784. 
 
 THE Rev. Dr. Coke, the Rev. Richard Whatcoat, 
 and the Rev. Thomas Yasey, having been duly 
 commissioned by Mr. Wesley, the head of American 
 as well as European Methodism, sailed from Bristol, 
 England, on the 18th of September, 1784. 1 Whatcoat 
 and Yasey were ordained elders on the 1st of Sep- 
 tember. On the 2d of September Dr. Coke was " set 
 apart as a superintendent." The preface to the Ser- 
 vice-book was written on the 9th of September, and 
 the circular letter was written on the 10th of the 
 same month; and now, on the 18th, the three men, 
 chosen by Mr. Wesley to inaugurate a new era in 
 American Methodism, sail for the port of New York. 
 Coke's companions are worthy of more than a pass- 
 ing notice. 
 
 Thomas Yasey was left an orphan at an early 
 age, but was cared for by a wealthy and childless 
 uncle, who adopted him as the heir to his property. 
 The nephew experienced conversion among the Meth- 
 odists, and this so excited the indignation of the uncle, 
 who was a rigid Churchman, tliat he threatened to 
 disinherit the nephew if he joined any of Wesley's 
 societies. Thomas Yasey was not moved by this 
 
 1 Date given by Coke in Extracts from Dr. Coke's Journal, London, 
 
 1793, p. 7. 
 236 
 
THE ORGANIZING CONFERENCE OF 1784. 237 
 
 threat, but feeling that with him it was a matter of 
 conscience, he sacrificed his present comfort and pro- 
 spective wealth, and became not only a member of one 
 of the societies, but also a Methodist itinerant. He 
 had been a preacher about nine years when Wesley's 
 presbytery ordained him an elder. 
 
 Richard Whatcoat, like Thomas Vasey, was born 
 in England. At the time of his ordination he had 
 been a Wesleyan preacher fifteen years, having entered 
 the Conference in 1769, the very year Boardman 
 and Pilmoor, Wesley's first missionaries, started for 
 America. 
 
 Dr. Abel Stevens has justly said : " Richard What- 
 coat was one of the saintliest men in the primitive 
 itinerancy of Methodism. Had he been a papist he 
 might have been canonized." 1 One of his biogra- 
 .phers states that it might be said of him as of St. 
 Basil, "that so much divine majesty and luster ap- 
 peared in him, it made the wicked tremble to behold 
 him." Continuing, he declares: "In him were seen 
 majesty and love. His whole deportment was beauti- 
 ful, and adorned with personal graces. His amiable, 
 heavenly, and courteous carriage was such as to make 
 him the delight of his acquaintances. He was a man 
 of fortitude; he appeared to fear no danger when 
 duty was plain (as his labors and troubles showed), 
 believing that he who walks uprightly walks safely, 
 though he pass ( through the valley of the shadow of 
 death.'" 2 
 
 A. Stevens, History of Methodist Episcopal Church, Vol. II, p 157. 
 Dr. Phcebus's Meras. of Bishop Whatcoat, New York, 1828, p. 58. 
 
238 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 Such were the two presbyters who accompanied 
 Dr. Coke on the mission to reorganize the Methodist 
 societies in the United States. 
 
 We have already seen that Dr. Coke had become 
 a sort of general assistant to Wesley in England and 
 Ireland. He had been associated with Mr. Wesley 
 about seven years, and in that time had gained great 
 experience. Mr. Wesley and Dr. Coke alternated in 
 annual visits to the societies in Ireland, and a in the 
 year 1782 he was directed by Mr. Wesley to convene 
 together the Irish preachers, and to hold, for the first 
 time, a Conference in Dublin, upon the same prin- 
 ciples that the Conferences in England had been con- 
 ducted. . . , As the Irish were so well satisfied 
 with his conduct as president of their Conference that 
 they Were anxious for his reappoiutment, he took occa- 
 sion in several succeeding years to travel over as many 
 circuits as time would permit him to visit, in order to 
 make himself fully acquainted with the state of relig- 
 ion throughout the kingdom. This previous knowl- 
 edge, thus acquired, enabled him to fill his station in 
 the ensuing assembly with more confidence in himself, 
 and with an increasing approbation from the people. 
 And from this year, 1782, until he prepared to visit 
 India, Dr. Coke almost invariably presided in the 
 Irish Conference; thus filling the presidential chair 
 with honor, approbation, and great utility for nearly 
 thirty years." l 
 
 At this time, however, we are especially interested 
 
 i Samuel Drew, Life of. Rev. Thomas Coke, LL. D., New York, Ed. 
 817, pp. 49-51. 
 
THE ORGANIZING CONFERENCE OF 1784. 239 
 
 in Dr. Coke's mission to America. Wesleyan Meth- 
 odism was introduced into New York by a German 
 Palatine from Ireland ; into Maryland by an Irishman ; 
 and into Philadelphia and other places by a British 
 officer. Wesley's first missionaries to America were 
 English; the one who organized the Annual Confer- 
 ence was a Scotchman ; and now Wesley sends Dr. 
 Coke, a Welshman, to reorganize the work in Amer- 
 ica, and give it a different and more dignified status. 
 Thus every part of the insular empire has had its rep- 
 resentative in this mission. 
 
 After a voyage of forty-seven days, Coke and his 
 two associates landed at New York on the 3d of 
 November, 1784. 1 
 
 Drew, in his life of Dr. Coke, states that, " arriv- 
 ing at New York in perfect health, the first care of Dr. 
 Coke, after taking an affectionate leave of the captain 
 and his companions on board, was to find out the Meth- 
 odist preaching-house. In this inquiry he was assisted 
 by a gentleman who, although he had no connection 
 with the Methodists, conducted him to the house of a 
 Mr. Sands, where he took up his abode, and found him- 
 self in a region of hospitality and friendship." 2 His 
 host was Mr. Stephen Sands, an influential member 
 and trustee of the John Street Church. 3 
 
 Drew says : " The intelligence of his arrival soon 
 brought to the house the traveling preacher stationed 
 in that city. To him Dr. Coke unfolded the plan 
 
 i Samuel Drew, Life of Dr. Coke, N. Y., Ed. 1847, p. 96. /d., p, 97. 
 A. Stevens, History of Methodist Episcopal Church, 1868, Vol. 
 II, p. 170. 
 
240 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 which Mr. Wesley had adopted for the regulation 
 and government of his societies in America. And 
 it was no small consolation to him to learn that the 
 plan met his entire approbation ; and so confident 
 was he of Mr. Asbury's concurrence, that he advised 
 him immediately to make it public throughout all the 
 societies, being fully assured that the name of Mr. 
 Wesley would impart a degree of sanction to the 
 measure which would disarm resistance, even if any 
 were to be apprehended." l 
 
 This preacher was John Dickins, who, at that 
 time was stationed in New York. He was a member 
 of the Virginia Conference when it decided to author- 
 ize some of its preachers to administer the sacra- 
 ments. He favored that course then, and now gladly 
 'hails the coming of an ordained ministry having the 
 sanction of Mr. Wesley. 
 
 Dr. Coke mentions his interview with Dickins. 
 The entry in his journal was made on the very day 
 of his arrival in America. He says : " I have opened 
 Mr. Wesley's plan to Brother Dickins, the traveling 
 preacher'stationed at this place (New York), and he 
 highly approves of it ; says that all the preachers 
 most earnestly long for such a regulation, and that 
 Mr. Asbury, he is sure, will agree to it. He presses 
 me earnestly to make it public, because, as he most 
 justly argues, Mr. Wesley has determined the point, 
 and, therefore, it is not to be investigated but com- 
 plied with." 2 
 
 i Samuel Drew, Life of Dr. Coke, New York, Ed. 1847, p. 97. 
 Dr. Coke's Journal, Novembers, 1784. 
 
THE ORGANIZING CONFERENCE OF 1784. 241 
 
 Reasoning from accepted principles, this was cer- 
 tainly most logical. The American Methodists had 
 recognized Mr. Wesley as their chief, and had agreed 
 to obey his authority. His power was supreme among 
 the Methodists on both sides of the Atlantic, and on 
 the theory constantly advanced by Asbury and held 
 by the Conference generally, it was not for them to 
 question what Wesley did, but to obey his com- 
 mands and to follow his suggestions. Consistency 
 would compel Asbury and his followers to accept 
 Wesley's arrangement the moment it was made known. 
 Under their theory it was not necessary that all or 
 any of them should be consulted, but simply that 
 they be informed. 
 
 The logic of John Dickins was sound, but the 
 course suggested would not have been wise. There- 
 fore, " that nothing might be done precipitately, Dr. 
 Coke declined carrying the advice into execution 
 until he had seen Mr. Asbury, to whom he had a 
 particular message, although they were personally 
 unknown to each other, that they might act in con- 
 cert and take no step that should not be the result of 
 calm deliberation." 1 
 
 That Dr. Coke was to be sent to America seems 
 to have been announced prior to his coming; for he 
 remarks : " By some means or other the whole 
 country has been, as it were, expecting, and Mr. 
 Asbury looking out for me for some time." 
 
 Having preached a few times in New York, Dr. 
 Coke, without further delay, starts southward in 
 
 Samuel Drew, Life of Dr. Coke, New York, Ed. 1847, pp. 97, 98. 
 
242 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 search of Mr. Asbury. Three days after his landing 
 in the new country Dr. Coke reached Philadelphia, 
 and, after a few days, went into the State of Delaware. 
 In some way he appears to have obtained information 
 as to Asbury's itinerary, for he moves as directly 
 toward him as if he knew that on a certain day 
 Asbury would be in a certain place. 
 
 Freeborn Garrettson tells us that : " In August 
 1784, I received a letter from Brother F. A. [Francis 
 Asbury] in which I was desired to prepare for a 
 journey to Charleston as quick as possible. At that 
 time I was traveling in Talbot Circuit, and had great 
 freedom among the people. ... I went as far as 
 Dover, and intended to stay at R. B.'s, Esq. [Richard 
 Bassett], a few days. The evening following a friend 
 came to my room, and informed me that Dr. Coke 
 had arrived and was below. I went down, and re- 
 ceived him and Brother W. [Whatcoat] as welcome 
 messengers." 1 
 
 Richard Bassett was not only a prominent Method- 
 ist, but he was also one of the distinguished citizens 
 of the State of Delaware. In 1787 he was a member 
 of the Convention that framed the Constitution of the 
 United States. Subsequently he was a member of 
 the United States Congress and Governor of the State 
 of Delaware, and in the latter part of his life he was 
 Judge of the United States District Court. It was to 
 the house of this honored man, then a member of 
 the Executive Council of the State, that Dr. Coke 
 and the Rev. Richard Whatcoat came on Saturday, 
 
 i Garrettson 's Autobiography, p. 197. 
 
THE ORGANIZING CONFERENCE OF 1784. 243 
 
 the 13th of November, 1784; and it is remarkable 
 that in this very house in Dover, Delaware, Whatcoat 
 died in 1806. 
 
 On the very day of their arrival it would appear 
 that a quarterly meeting was in progress at Barratt's 
 Chapel; for at that time the quarterly meetings, 
 wherever practicable, began on Saturday and con- 
 tinued the following Sunday. 
 
 Barratt's Chapel, which was situated near Freder- 
 ica, Delaware, had been built by Judge Philip Bar- 
 ratt, another prominent layman of early Methodism in 
 Delaware. When the chapel was in course of erection, 
 in 1780, a gentleman asked what it was for. On being 
 told that it was to be a place of worship for the 
 Methodists, he exclaimed: "It is unnecessary to build 
 such a house, for by the time the war is over a corn- 
 crib will hold them all." However, he did not prove 
 to be a true prophet, for in the four years from 1780 
 to 1784 the Methodists almost doubled their numbers. 
 In the former year they had 42 preachers and 8,504 
 members, while in the latter year they had 83 preach- 
 ers and 14,988 members. 1 What would he now say 
 if he knew of the millions of Methodists in the 
 United States to-day? 
 
 Freeborn Garrettson, who happened to be at Judge 
 Bassett's, became the guide to conduct Dr. Coke and 
 Mr. Whatcoat to the quarterly meeting at Barratt's 
 Chapel. He states that he "accompanied them the 
 next day [after their arrival at Dover] to a quarterly 
 meeting held at Barratt's Chapel. Dear Mr. Wesley 
 
 i Printed Minutes, 1773-1813, pp. 27,46. 
 
244 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 had gratified the desires of thousands of his friends 
 in America in sending a power of ordination and giv- 
 ing his consent to our becoming a separate Church." 1 
 
 This was Sunday, November 14, 1784. The cir- 
 cumstances lead us to infer that Dr. Coke had been 
 informed that Mr. Asbury was expected at this quar- 
 terly meeting, and that he had moved so quickly 
 from New York in order that he might have an in- 
 terview with the other man who had been selected by 
 Mr. Wesley to serve as superintendent of the reor- 
 ganized Methodism in America. Dr. Coke bas left a 
 brief account of his visit to Barratt's Chapel, which 
 he says was " so-called from the name of our friend 
 who built it, and who went to heaven a few days 
 ago." " In this chapel," he adds, " in the midst of 
 a forest, I had a noble congregation, to whom I en- 
 deavored to set forth the Redeemer as our wisdom, 
 righteousness, sanctification, and redemption. After 
 the sermon, a plain, robust man came up to me in the 
 pulpit and kissed me. I thought it could be no other 
 than Mr. Asbury, and I was not deceived. I admin- 
 istered the sacrament, after preaching, to five or six 
 hundred communicants, and held love-feast. It was 
 the best season I ever knew, except one at Charle- 
 mont in Ireland." 
 
 Though Coke probably knew that Asbury was 
 expected at that quarterly meeting, it appears that 
 Asbury did not know of Coke's presence until he 
 arrived at the chapel, yet there is reason to believe 
 that Asbury expected to meet Coke in that locality. 
 
 Garrettson's Autobiography, p. 197. 
 
THE ORGANIZING CONFERENCE OF 1784. 245 
 
 Asbury says: "Sunday 15th [14th] I came to Bar- 
 ratt's Chapel. Here, to my great joy, I met these 
 dear men of God, Dr. Coke and Richard Whatcoat. 
 We were greatly comforted together. The Doctor 
 preached on ' Christ Our Wisdom, Righteousness, 
 Sanctification, and Redemption/ Having had no op- 
 portunity of conversing with them before public 
 worship, I was greatly surprised to see Brother 
 Whatcoat assist by taking the cup in the administra- 
 tion of the sacrament." l 
 
 The Rev. Ezekiel Cooper, who was present when 
 Coke and Asbury met for the first time, gives the 
 following account of that event: "Dr. Coke and 
 Whatcoat, leaving Vasey behind, hastened on to 
 the South with all expedition. On the 14th of the 
 same month, November, they met Mr. Asbury and 
 about fifteen of the American preachers at a quarterly 
 meeting held in Barratt's Chapel, Kent County, State 
 of Delaware. I was then a witness with my eyes, 
 my ears, and my heart, of one of the most solemn, 
 interesting, and affectionate meetings. It was in full 
 view of a large concourse of people a crowded con- 
 gregation, assembled for public worship. While Dr. 
 Coke was preaching, Mr. Asbury came into the con- 
 gregation. A solemn pause and deep silence took 
 place at Ihe close of the sermon, as an interval for 
 introduction and salutation. Asbury and Coke, with 
 great solemnity and much dignified sensibility, and 
 with full hearts of brotherly love, approached, em- 
 braced, and saluted each other. The other preachers, 
 
 i Asbury's Journal, 1821, Vol. I, p. 376. 
 
246 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 at the same time participating in the tender sensibil- 
 ities of the affectionate salutations, were melted into 
 sweet sympathy and tears. The congregation also 
 caught the glowing emotion, and the whole assembly, 
 as if divinely struck with a shock of heavenly elec- 
 tricity, burst into a flood of tears. Every heart ap- 
 peared as if filled and overflowing with love, unity, 
 and fellowship; and a kind of ecstasy, or rapture, of 
 joy and gladness ensued. I can never forget the af- 
 fecting scene. The sacrament of the Lord's Supper 
 was administered by the Doctor and Mr. Whatcoat to 
 several hundreds, and it was a blessed season to many 
 souls, while in the holy ordinance they through faith 
 discerned the Lord's body, and shewed forth his death, 
 and were feasting on him in their souls by faith with 
 thanksgiving. It is the more impressive on my mind 
 and affecting to my recollection ; for at that meeting 
 was the first time I ever partook of the Lord's Sup- 
 per, and the first time that that ordinance was ever 
 administered among the Methodists in this country 
 by their own regularly ordained preachers." l 
 
 This was, indeed, the opening of a new era for the 
 American Methodists. Now, with the approval of 
 Mr. Wesley, they had the sacraments from their own 
 ministers. The letter sent to him in 1780, calling his 
 attention to the fact that they were destitute of the 
 sacraments, had at last been answered by that which 
 would meet the demand. Part of Wesley's plan was 
 now in actual operation. 
 
 The same day Dr. Coke presented to Asbury the 
 
 1 Cooper on Asbury, Phila., 1819, pp. 104-103. 
 
THE ORGANIZING CONFERENCE OF 1784. 247 
 
 details of the new arrangement. Dr. Coke says: 
 "After dining, in company with eleven of the preach- 
 ers, at our Sister Barratt's, about a mile from the 
 chapel, I privately opened our plan to Mr. Asbury. 
 He expressed considerable doubts concerning it, which 
 I rather applauded than otherwise, but informed me 
 that he had received some intimations of my arrival 
 on the continent; and as he thought it probable I 
 might meet him on that day, and have something of 
 importance to communicate to him from Mr. Wesley, 
 he had therefore called together a considerable num- 
 ber of preachers to form a council, and if they were 
 of opinion that it would be expedient immediately 
 to call a conference, it should be done.'' l 
 
 This shows that Asbury was expecting to meet Dr. 
 Coke in this locality, and about this time. It also 
 reveals Asbury's foresight in calling so many preach- 
 ers to that point at that time, that he might be forti- 
 fied by their opinions. It was an astute move for 
 himself personally, and a wise move in the interest of 
 all concerned. 
 
 Asbury says: " I was shocked when first informed 
 of the intention of these my brethren in coming to 
 this country. It may be of God. My answer then 
 was, if the preachers unanimously choose me, I shall 
 not act in the capacity I have hitherto done by Mr. 
 Wesley's appointment." 2 
 
 Mr. Asbury had constantly impressed the Amer- 
 ican preachers and people with the idea that Mr. 
 
 * Coke's Journal, in Arminian Magazine, Phila., 1789, pp. 243, 244. 
 Asbury s Journal, 1821, Vol. I, p. 376. 
 
248 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 Wesley was supreme in Methodist affairs, and that 
 they must be in complete subjection to him. Indeed, 
 Asbury's authority, as the head of American Meth- 
 odism, was based on the fact that once he had been 
 appointed assistant by Mr. Wesley. Until the arrival 
 of Dr. Coke he had been the absolute ruler in Amer- 
 ica. Now Wesley's plan was that Dr. Coke should 
 share this power with Mr. Asbury. 
 
 Prior to this, Mr. Asbury appears to have had 
 some apprehensions. Years before, Wesley had re- 
 called others to England, and he had even ordered 
 Asbury to return. What Wesley might do later he 
 did not know. On his own theory Wesley had a 
 right to recall him or to put another in his place. 
 Circumstances which were very marked indicate, how- 
 ever, that Mr. Asbury had no thought of relinquish- 
 ing the'authority he swayed over preachers who were 
 generally, if not in all cases, his juniors. Others, 
 doubtless, wanted to retain the services of Mr. As- 
 bury. Thus, on the 24th of May, 1783, Edward 
 Dromgoole, who aided Asbury at the Virginia Con- 
 ference, wrote to Mr. Wesley as follows: 
 
 " The preachers at present are united to Mr. 
 Asbury, and esteem him very highly in love for his 
 work's sake, and earnestly desire his continuance on 
 the continent during his natural life, and to act as 
 he does at present ; to wit, to superintend the whole 
 work and go through all the circuits once a year. 
 He is now well acquainted with the country, with the 
 preachers and people, and has a large share in the 
 
THE ORGANIZING CONFERENCE OF 1784. 249 
 
 affections of both ; therefore they would not will- 
 ingly part with him/ 7 1 
 
 Asbury himself wrote Wesley, on the 20th of 
 September, 1783, suggesting his willingness to con- 
 tinue in his position as head of the Methodists in 
 America. In this letter Asbury says: 
 
 " ~No person can manage the lay preachers here 
 so well, it is thought, as one that has been at the 
 raising of most of them. No man can make a proper 
 change upon paper to send one here and another 
 [there], without knowing the circuits and the gifts of 
 all the preachers, unless he is always out among 
 them. My dear sir, a matter of the greatest conse- 
 quence now lies before you. If you send preachers 
 to America, let them be proper persons. We are 
 now united* all things go on well considering the 
 storms and difficulties we have had to ride through. 
 I wish men of the greatest understanding would write 
 impartial accounts, for it would be better for us not 
 to have preachers than to be divided. This I know; 
 great men that can do good may do hurt if they 
 should take the wrong road. I have labored and. 
 suffered much to keep the people and preachers to- 
 gether; and if I am thought worthy to keep my place 
 I should be willing to labor and suffer till death for 
 peace and union." 2 
 
 Six months later Asbury wrote Wesley : " You 
 
 1 Arminian Magazine, 1791. 
 
 2 J. Atkinson, D. D., Centennial History of American Methodism, 
 New York, 1884, pp. 72, 73. 
 
 17 
 
250 GOVERNING CONFKRKNCIC IN METHODISM. 
 
 know, sir, it is not easy to rule, nor am I pleased with 
 it; I bear it as my cross, yet it seems that a necessity 
 is laid upon me." 1 
 
 It is evident that Asbury was unwilling to be re- 
 moved from his position of power, and there is some 
 evidence to prove that he was not anxious to have 
 any one sent from England to share his power. So 
 Dr. Coke, on the 9th of August, 1784, wrote to Mr. 
 Wesley a letter which contains the following state- 
 ment : " Mr. Brackenbury informed me at Leeds 
 that he saw a letter from Mr. Asbury, in which he 
 observed that he would not receive any person de- 
 puted by you with any part of the superintendency of 
 the work invested in him, or words which evi- 
 dently implied so much." 2 This asserted fact Coke 
 uses as a reason why Wesley should set him apart 
 to the work of his office with some special cere- 
 mony, so that his authority] would be more freely 
 received in America. 3 
 
 It was somewhat singular, as already suggested, 
 that Asbury would object to accepting the position 
 of superintendent solely on Wesley's appointment. 
 Heretofore he had insisted that Wesley was the su- 
 preme authority, and that preachers and people were 
 bound to obey him when he pronounced a decision. 
 Yet when Mr. Wesley appoints him superintendent 
 
 i J. Atkinson, D. D., Centennial History of American Methodism, 
 New York, 1884, pp. 72, 73. 
 
 2Whitehead's Life of Wesley, Vol. II, p. 417; Tyerman's Life of 
 Wesley, Vol. Ill, p. 429. 
 
 T. B. Neely, Evolution of Episcopacy and Organic Methodism, 
 New York, 1884, pp. 21(5, 218. 
 
THK ORGANIZING CONFERENCE OF 1784. 251 
 
 he wants the matter submitted to the Conference, and 
 asks the vote of the Conference. 
 
 There was manifestly a little inconsistency on the 
 part of Asbury ; but it was one .of those inconsisten- 
 cies that bring good results. 
 
 However, in submitting his superintendency to 
 the vote of the Conference, Asbury took no risk; for 
 he had been at least twice selected by the preachers to 
 superintend the work, and nearly all the preachers in 
 the body had been brought into the Conference under 
 him. There was, therefore, no doubt as to the action 
 of the Conference. It was a moral certainty that the 
 body would elect him superintendent, and certainly 
 in preference to a stranger who had just come 
 across the sea. 
 
 Asbury took no personal risk in the submis- 
 sion, but, on the contrary, by the submission made his 
 position more secure. The preachers knew him, many 
 of them were devoted to him, and he had proved his 
 devotion to American Methodism by refusing to 
 return to England and by remaining in America 
 throughout the war. ^ 
 
 By submitting the question to the Conference, 
 Asbury broke Wesley's complete control over the af- 
 fairs of American Methodism. It was equivalent to 
 saying that Wesley should no longer have exclusive 
 authority, but that there was a new factor namely, 
 the American Conference to be considered. If the 
 idea was carried out, it would become a settled prin- 
 ciple that Wesley could neither appoint nor remove a 
 superintendent at his pleasure. By this Asbury 
 
252 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 strengthened himself, and, as far as Wesley was con- 
 cerned, seated himself more securely in his position, 
 though he placed himself at the mercy and under the 
 control of the Conference. If this plan was fol- 
 lowed, Asbury would be practically independent of 
 Wesley. 
 
 The suggestion conceded power to the Conference 
 such as it never possessed before, and, whatever may 
 be thought of his motive, the Church owes much to 
 Asbury for this act. Even if his purpose was to 
 strengthen his own personal power, its effect was the 
 destruction of supreme personal government on the 
 part of Wesley, Coke, Asbury, or any other indi- 
 vidual. It destroyed personal government and placed 
 the governing power in the Conference. 
 
 There is no evidence that Mr. Wesley intended 
 that the matter should be submitted to the Confer- 
 ence, and, possibly, Dr. Coke expected that he and 
 Mr. Asbury, acting jointly, would govern the Meth- 
 odists in the United States, as Mr. Wesley did those 
 in the British realm, or at least that they would rule 
 under his general,, direction, without submitting any- 
 thing to the decision of the American Conference. 
 
 Mr. Asbury, however, destroyed this vision of 
 power, based merely on Mr. Wesley's appointment, 
 and inaugurated a new era by refusing to act as 
 superintendent simply under appointment by the 
 Rev. John Wesley. 
 
 When Asbury exclaimed, as Thomas Ware de- 
 clares he did, after Dr. Coke had shown him his cre- 
 dentials, " Doctor, we will call the preachers together, 
 
THE ORGANIZING CONFERENCE OF 1784. 253 
 
 and the voice of the preachers shall be to rae the 
 voice of God," l he struck the knell of personal gov- 
 ernment, and rung in the era of government by the 
 Conference. 
 
 Referring to Asbury's determination, the Rev. 
 Nicholas Snethen, one of the early Methodist minis- 
 ters, says : " Asbury in securing to the General Con- 
 ference the election of the bishops, by declining to 
 serve under Mr. Wesley's appointment until he was 
 elected by the American preachers, subserved the 
 cause of independence." 2 
 
 After Dr. Coke heard Asbury 's proposition to 
 submit the matter to a conference of the preachers, 
 those whom Mr. Asbury had concentrated at that 
 point were called together for consultation. 
 
 Mr. Garrettson says : " About fifteen preachers 
 were present." 3 
 
 Dr. Coke tells us : " They were accordingly 
 called, and, after debate, were unanimously of 
 opinion that it would be best immediately to call a 
 Conference of all the preachers on the continent." 4 
 
 Asbury says : " The design of organizing the 
 Methodists into an Independent Episcopal Church 
 was opened to the preachers present, and it was 
 agreed to call a General Conference to meet at Balti- 
 more the ensuing Christmas; as also that Brother 
 Garrettson go off to Virginia to give notice thereof 
 
 i Thomas Ware's Autobiography, New York, 1840, p. 102; Rev. 
 Thomas Ware in Methodist Quarterly Review, Vol. XIV, 1832. 
 
 * Snethen 's Sermon in the Christian World, 1841. 
 
 'Garrettson's Autobiography, p. 198. 
 
 4 Coke's Journal in Armiuian Magazine, Philadelphia, 1789, pp. 
 243, 244. 
 
254 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 to our brethren in the South/ 71 This " Council," as 
 Coke termed it, in agreeing that a General Confer- 
 ence, or a Conference of the preachers in general, 
 should be called, practically agreed that personal 
 government should give way to Conference gov- 
 ernment, or, in other words, Coke, Asbury, and 
 the council of preachers affirmed the principle that 
 the supreme governing power was not and should 
 not be in Asbury, Coke, or Wesley, but in the Con- 
 ference of American preachers. So Garrettson and 
 others flew over the country with the call for the 
 Conference. 
 
 Coke says : " We therefore sent off Freeborn Gar- 
 rettson like an arrow from North to South, directing 
 him to send messengers to the right and left, and to 
 gather all the preachers together at Baltimore on 
 Christmas eve. Mr. Asbury has also drawn up for 
 me a route of about a thousand miles in the meantime. 
 He has given me his black (Harry by name), and bor- 
 rowed an excellent horse for me. I exceedingly rev- 
 erence Mr. Asbury ; he has so much wisdom and con- 
 sideration^ so much meekness and love; and under all 
 this, though hardly to be perceived, so much command 
 and authority. He and I have agreed to use our joint 
 endeavors to establish a school or college. I baptized 
 here thirty or forty infants, and seven adults. We 
 had, indeed, a precious time at the baptism of the 
 adults." 2 
 
 i Asbury's Journal, New York, 1821, p. 376. 
 
 2 Dr. Coke's Journal, London, 1793; Dr. A. Stevens, History of 
 Methodist Episcopal Church, N. Y., 1865, pp. 171, 172. 
 
THE ORGANIZING CONFERENCE OF 1784. 255 
 
 The latter remark illustrates the destitute condi- 
 tion of the people as to the sacraments. Garrettson, 
 Coke's arrow, gives the following account : " It was 
 concluded that I should go through the continent, 
 and call a Conference at Baltimore immediately. 
 Within six weeks, after traveling upwards of twelve 
 hundred miles, I settled the business, besides preach- 
 ing almost every day once, and sometimes twice; 
 and made my return." 1 The Rev. Jesse Lee, the 
 author of the first " History of the Methodists in the 
 United States of America/ 7 who appears to have been 
 missed by this "arrow," and was not present when 
 the Conference convened, makes this comment upon 
 Garrettson's mission : 
 
 " Mr. Freeborn Garrettson undertook to travel to 
 the South, in order to give notice to all the traveling- 
 preachers of this intended meeting; but, being fond 
 of preaching by the way, and thinking he could do 
 the business by writing, he did not give timely notice 
 to the preachers who were in the extremities of the 
 work, and, of course, several of them were not at that 
 Conference." 2 
 
 It would, however, have been surprising had no 
 one failed to receive the notification. There were 
 no railroads, there were no telegraphs ; mail facilities 
 were very poor, and the preachers were scattered 
 over extensive circuits, which, in many instances, re- 
 quire'd even weeks to make the circuit of their work. 
 
 1 Garretlson's Autobiography ; The Experience and Travels of Mr. 
 Freeboru Garrettson, Philadelphia, 1791, p. 198. 
 
 2 Jesse Lee, History of the Methodists, 1810, pp. 93, 94. 
 
256 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 Lee in that year was located at Salisbury in the 
 western part of North Carolina, 1 and, it seems, the notice 
 did not reach him in time. Dr. Leroy M. Lee says: 
 "On the 12th of December Mr. Lee received official 
 notice, informing him that the Rev. Dr. Coke, ac- 
 companied by the Rev. Messrs. Whatcoat and Yasey, 
 had arrived in America, delegated with authority from 
 Mr. Wesley to erect the societies into an independent 
 ecclesiastical organization, under a form of govern- 
 ment the outlines of which had been supplied by Mr. 
 Wesley himself. This notice was received only thir- 
 teen days before the Conference was to assemble, and 
 he was in delicate health, and five hundred miles 
 from the place appointed for its session ; and, withal, 
 it was a period of the year that forbade the thought 
 .of attempting the journey. He very wisely, therefore, 
 resolved to remain on his circuit, and gave himself to 
 such employment for the good of souls as the state 
 of his health and the season of the year would allow 
 him to engage in." 2 If, however, Mr. Lee at such 
 a remote point received an " official notice," it is 
 likely that very few failed to receive the notification. 
 
 Asbury's journal furnishes some points of interest 
 as to the interval between the Barratt's Chapel meet- 
 ing and the session of the especially called Confer- 
 ence. The brief notes, though in a very condensed 
 form, are exceedingly suggestive. Thus he writes : 
 
 " Delaware. I was very desirous that the Doctor 
 should go upon the track I had just been over, which 
 
 i Minutes, 1784 ; Lee's Life of Jesse Lee, p. 125. 
 
 Rev. Leroy M. Lee, D. D., Life of Rev. Jesse Lee, 1860, p. 129. 
 
THE ORGANIZING CONFERENCE OF 1784. 257 
 
 he accordingly did. I came to Dover, and preached 
 on Eph. v, 6. Was close and, I hope, profitable. 
 
 " Maryland. Tuesday 16th (Nov.) Kode to Bo- 
 hemia, where I met with Mr. Thomas Vasey, who 
 came over with the Doctor and R. Whatcoat. My 
 soul is deeply engaged with God, to know his will 
 in this new business." 
 
 Mr. Yasey, for some unknown reason, did not ac- 
 company Dr. Coke and Mr. Whatcoat; and this was 
 the first interview with Asbury. Mr. Asbury informs 
 us that on the 17th of November he "rode to quar- 
 terly meeting at Deer Creek, thence by Mr. Gough's 
 to Baltimore." On Tuesday, the 23d, he says : " We 
 rode twenty miles to Frederick quarterly meeting, 
 where Brother Vasey preached on ' The Lord is my 
 shepherd; I shall not want/ Our love-feast was 
 attended with the power and presence of God. 
 Leaving Frederick, I went to Calvert quarterly meet- 
 ing. Brother Poythress and myself had much talk 
 about the new plan." 
 
 On Friday, the 26th, he writes : " I observed this 
 day as a day of fasting and prayer, that I might know 
 the will of God in the matter that is shortly to come 
 before our Conference. The preachers and people 
 seem to be much pleased with the projected plan. I 
 myself am led to think it is of the Lord. I am not 
 tickled with the honor to be gained. I see danger in 
 the way. My soul waits upon God. O that he may 
 lead us in the way we should go ! Part of my time 
 
 i Asbury's Journal, N. Y., 1821, Vol. I, p. 370. 
 
258 GOVERNING CONFKRIONCK IN METHODISM. 
 
 is, and must necessarily be, taken up with preparing 
 for the Conference.' 71 
 
 On Tuesday, 30th, Mr. Asbury makes this signifi- 
 cant entry: "The Rev. M. W s and myself had an 
 interesting conversation on the subject of the epis- 
 copal mode of Church government." 2 
 
 Saturday, December 4th, he " rode to Baltimore." 
 On Tuesday, the 14th, he says: "I met Dr. Coke at 
 Abingdon, Mr. Richard Dallam kindly taking him 
 there in his coach. He preached on 'He that hath 
 the Son hath life/ We talked of our concerns in 
 great love. 
 
 "Wednesday, loth. My soul was much blessed at 
 the communion, where I believe all were more or less 
 engaged with God. I feel it necessary to daily give 
 up my own will. The Dr. preached a great sermon 
 on 'He that loveth father or mother more than 
 me/ etc. 
 
 "Saturday, 18th. Spent the day at Perry Hall, 
 partly in preparing for Conference. My intervals of 
 time I passed in reading the third volume of the 
 British Arminian Magazine. Continued at Perry Hall 
 until Friday, the 24th. We then rode to Baltimore, 
 where we met a few preachers." 3 
 
 When Asbury met Coke at Abingdon, the latter 
 was on his way to Perry Hall. At Abingdon they 
 were joined by William Black, an English preacher, 
 who had founded Methodism in Nova Scotia, and was 
 
 i Asbury, Journal, N. Y., 1821, Vol. T, pp. 376, 377. 
 2/tJ., p. 377. *lbid. 
 
THE ORGANIZING CONFERENCE OF 1784. 259 
 
 now seeking ministerial re-enforcements for that dis- 
 tant province. 1 
 
 Stevens says that" on the 17th of December all 
 the traveling preachers, except Whatcoat, arrived 
 under the roof of Gough, at Perry Hall." Dr. Coke 
 referred to this noted mansion as " the most elegant 
 house in this State," and he adds : " I have a noble 
 room to myself, where Mr. Asbury and I may, in the 
 course of a week, mature everything for the Confer- 
 ence." Mr. Black, alluded to above, speaks of Perry 
 Hall as a the most spacious and elegant building" he 
 had seen in America. " It is," he says, " about fifteen 
 miles from Baltimore. Mr. Gough, its owner, is a 
 Methodist, and supposed to be worth one hundred 
 thousand pounds. 2 He is not ashamed of the gospel 
 of Christ. He has built a neat stone meeting-house, 
 entertains the circuit preachers, and at times preaches 
 himself; and thus he continued to do during the late 
 war, at the risk of his immense estate." 3 
 
 Whatcoat, who had been preaching on the way, 
 arrived on the 19th of December. "The next day 
 they began the revision of the i Rules and Minutes/ 
 and made other provisions for the approaching ses- 
 sion. Four days were spent in this task, relieved by 
 frequent religious exercises inGough's numerous family 
 and by the social hospitalities of the neighborhood." 4 
 
 iA. Stevens, History of the Methodist Episcopal Church, N. Y., 
 1865, Vol. II, p. 179. 
 
 2 Immense wealth for that time, and equal to millions to-day. 
 
 Dr. Richey's Life of Black, Halifax, 1839, p. 135. 
 
 A. Stevens, History of the Methodist Episcopal Church, N. Y., 
 1865, Vol. II, p. 180. 
 
260 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 On Friday, the 24th of December, 1784, those 
 who had been entertained at Mr. Gough's rode to 
 Baltimore. There has been a difference of opinion 
 among historians as to the date when the Conference 
 convened. Lee has given December 27th as the 
 date, 1 which is the date in the heading of the "Form 
 of Discipline " adopted at that Conference, as follows: 
 " Minutes of Several Conversations between the Rev. 
 Thomas Coke, LL. D., the Rev. Francis Asbury, and 
 Others, at a Conference begun in Baltimore, in the 
 State of Maryland, on Monday, the 27th of Decem- 
 ber, in the Year 1784, composing a Form of Disci- 
 pline," etc. 
 
 But Asbury says they "continued at Perry Hall 
 until Friday, the 24th. We then rode to Baltimore, 
 where we met a few preachers." 2 Coke says : " On 
 Christmas eve we opened our Conference," 3 by which 
 it is presumed he means not so much the evening as 
 the day before Christmas. It could not have begun 
 on the 27th; for Coke's certificate of Asbury's ordi- 
 nation shows that Asbury was ordained a deacon on 
 the 25th, and on the 26th was ordained an elder. 4 
 This implies that the Conference was in session as 
 early as the 25th. Asbury says they rode to Balti- 
 more on the 24th, and Coke says the Conference 
 opened that day. Possibly the two dates may be har- 
 monized by accepting the 24th as the date when the 
 
 Lee, History of Methodists, 1810, p. 94. 
 2 Asbury's Journal, 1821, Vol. I, p. 377. 3 Coke's Journal. 
 * Certificate of Asbury's Ordination, Asbury's Journal, 1821, Vol. 
 p. 378. 
 
THK ORGANIZING CONFERENCE OF 1784. 261 
 
 Conference convened, and the 27th as the date when 
 the "Form of Discipline" was considered or finally 
 adopted; or possibly the four may have been mistaken 
 for a seven. 
 
 Whatcoat gives not only the day but the hour 
 when the Conference opened its session. He says: 
 "On the 24th we rode to Baltimore; at ten o'clock 
 we began our Conference." l 
 
 This Conference has been called the " Christmas 
 Conference," because it was in session during the 
 Christmas season. Thus Asbury remarks : " We spent 
 the whole week in Conference." 2 
 
 The sessions were held in the Lovely Lane Chapel. 
 Lee tells us this meeting " was considered to be a Gen- 
 eral Conference," and that " Thomas Coke and Francis 
 Asbury presided." 3 Dr. Coke says that out of eighty- 
 one traveling preachers, nearly sixty were present. 
 
 Stevens remarks that " Coke, on taking the chair, 
 presented a letter from Wesley, dated Bristol, Sep- 
 tember 10, 1784. " 4 This was the circular letter 
 which has been quoted in the preceding chapter. 5 
 
 The Rev. Thomas Ware, who was present at the 
 "Christmas Conference," tells us that the letter was 
 " read, analyzed, and cordially approved by the Con- 
 ference." 6 
 
 Asbury informs us, that the Conference spent the 
 
 1 Whatcoat's Mems., p. 21. 
 
 2 Asbury's Journal, 1821, Vol. I, p. 378. 
 
 a Lee's History of the Methodists, 1810, p. 94. 
 
 < A. Stevens, History of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 1865, 
 Vol. II, p. 181. 
 6 P;iges 231-234. 
 Autobiography of the Rev. Thomas Ware, 1840, pp. 105, 106. 
 
262 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 time "debating freely, and determining all things by 
 a majority of votes." l 
 
 Never before did he say that about an American 
 Conference. Heretofore the members may have de- 
 bated freely, but this is the first time we read of a 
 Conference " determining all things by a majority of 
 votes." 
 
 At last the Conference was supreme, and the votes 
 of the majority took the place of the will of one man. 
 Conference government is enthroned, and personal 
 rule becomes a thing of the past. 
 
 Now the question is not what Mr. Wesley in- 
 tended, but what did the Conference do ? 
 
 Asbury states : " It was agreed to form ourselves 
 into an Episcopal Church, and to have superintend- 
 ents, elders, and deacons." 2 
 
 As previously quoted, Asbury spoke of " the de- 
 sign of organizing the Methodists into an independent 
 Episcopal Church ;" now he declares that those as- 
 sembled in the Conference formed themselves into an 
 Episcopal Church. They organized a Church which 
 was episcopal, and which was independent of all other 
 Churches. 
 
 Thomas Ware says: "We therefore, according to 
 the best of our knowledge, received and followed 
 the advice of Mr. Wesley, as stated in our Form of 
 Discipline;" 3 and Garrettson says: "We acceded to 
 the method proposed by Mr. Wesley." 4 So they 
 
 1 Asbury's Journal, New York, 1821, Vol. I, p. 378. 2 Id., pp. 377, 378. 
 
 'Autobiography of Rev. Thomas Ware, New York, 1840, p. 105. 
 
 < Autobiography of Freeborn Qarrettson, Philadelphia, 1791, p. 198. 
 
THE ORGANIZING CONFERENCE OF 1784. 263 
 
 understood that what they did was in harmony with 
 the desire of Mr. Wesley. 
 
 William Watters, another member of that Confer- 
 ence, says : " We formed ourselves into a separate 
 Church. This change was proposed to us by Mr. 
 Wesley after we had craved his advice on the subject ; 
 but could not take effect till adopted by us, which 
 was done in a deliberate, formal manner, at a Confer- 
 ence called for that purpose, in which there was not 
 one dissenting vote." l 
 
 The Rev. Richard Whatcoat relates that the Con- 
 ference "agreed to form a Methodist Episcopal 
 Church, in which the Liturgy (as presented by Mr. 
 Wesley) should be read, and the sacraments be ad- 
 ministered by a superintendent, elders, and deacons." 2 
 
 The "Form of Discipline" adopted by this Con- 
 ference has the following: 
 
 " Ques. 3. As the ecclesiastical as well as the civil affairs 
 of these United States have passed through a very consider- 
 able change by the Revolution, what plan of Church govern- 
 ment shall we hereafter pursue ? 
 
 " Ans. We will form ourselves into an Episcopal Church, 
 under the direction of superintendents, elders, deacons, and 
 helpers, according to the forms of ordination annexed to our 
 Liturgy, and the Form of Discipline set forth in these 
 Minutes." 
 
 The Minutes of all the transactions of this Con- 
 ference do not appear to be extant, either in print 
 or manuscript, but their lack is supplied by the 
 testimony of participants; but the Annual Minutes 
 
 1 Autobiography of Rev. Wm. Watters, 1806, p. 102. 
 
 2 Whatcoat's Mems., p. 21. The italics are Whatcoat's. 
 
264 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 for the next year, 1785, contain the following para- 
 graph : " Therefore, at this Conference we formed our- 
 selves into an independent Church, and, following the 
 counsel of Mr. John Wesley, who recommended the 
 episcopal mode of Church government, we thought it 
 best to become an Episcopal Church, making the 
 episcopal office elective, and the elected superintend- 
 ent or bishop amenable to the body of ministers and 
 preachers." 1 
 
 Mr. Asbury says: "When the Conference was 
 seated, Dr. Coke and myself were unanimously 
 elected to the superintendency of the Church." 2 
 
 Having thus decided upon the organization, the 
 Conference elected various persons to deacons' and 
 elders' orders, and, under its authority, persons were 
 ordained deacons and elders; and Asbury was formally 
 set apart for the office of a superintendent. Thus 
 was organized " the Methodist Episcopal Church," or, 
 to give its full title, "The Methodist Episcopal 
 Church in the United States of America." 
 
 This Conference, as is evident, was not for the 
 purpose of doing ordinary Conference work. It was 
 rather of the nature of a Convention for the pur- 
 pose of considering the question of organization. 
 Yet it was a " General Conference " in the sense that 
 the call was to the preachers generally. 
 
 Preachers from all sections responded to the call. 
 About sixty out of a total of eighty-one preachers 
 
 1 It is more than doubtful whether the word " bishop " appeared in 
 the first issue of these Minutes. It was probably an insertion in the 
 reprint. 
 
 2 Asbury's Journal, 1821, Vol. I, p. 378. 
 
THE ORGANIZING CONFERENCE OF 1784. 265 
 
 assembled, making, doubtless, the largest number 
 that ever attended a Conference session in this 
 country up to that date. It will be remembered, 
 too, that ordinarily all the preachers were not ex- 
 pected to attend; for at the Conference of 1783 it was 
 settled that " the assistants and those who are to be 
 received into connection" 1 should be expected to at- 
 tend the Conference session. This Conference, there- 
 fore, was a very representative assembly. 2 
 
 The expressions, "We will form ourselves" and 
 " We formed ourselves," show that its members rec- 
 ognized the fact that the supreme power now vested 
 in the General Conference, or, as in the words used 
 in the Minutes of 1785, "the body of ministers and 
 preachers." 
 
 Nothing therefore was done by Mr. Wesley's di- 
 rection, but by the Conference of preachers in th-e 
 free use of the power which its members believed 
 vested in them when in Conference assembled. They 
 elected the superintendents, they passed upon the 
 plan for reorganization. They formed themselves 
 into a Church, and decided that it should be episco- 
 pal and liturgical ; but they decided that it should be 
 a Methodist Episcopal Church ; that is to say, an Epis- 
 copal Church, qualified by Methodist teachings as to 
 polity and doctrine. They decided that thereafter 
 the episcopal office would be elective, and made those 
 elected subject to the body of ministers. 
 
 The result was a marked change in the govern- 
 
 1 question 19, Minutes 1773-1813, p. 42. 
 
 2 For furl her p.-iriiculiirs see Evolution of Episcopacy and Organic 
 Methodism, by T. B. Neely, New York, 1888, pp. 235-298. 
 
 18 
 
266 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 ment of American Methodism. It was a change 
 from personal government, vested in an individual 
 whether Wesley, Coke, Asbury, or any other person 
 to Conference government, in which all authority 
 should vest primarily in the body of the ministry, 
 which ministry should exercise its power when acting 
 together as one body. 
 
 Conditions had been reversed. Instead of one 
 man or a few men controlling the body of the minis- 
 try, the body of the ministry had become supreme, 
 and all power whether legislative, executive, or 
 judicial centered in and emanated from the minis- 
 try in Conference assembled. Personal government 
 had passed away, and Conference government had 
 taken its place. 
 
 Notwithstanding this, the Conference placed in its 
 " Form of Discipline " the following : 
 
 " Ques. 2. What can be done in order to the future union 
 of the Methodists? 
 
 " Ans. During the life of the Rev. Mr. Wesley we ac- 
 knowledge ourselves his sons in the gospel, ready in matters 
 belonging to Church government to obey his commands. And 
 we do engage, after his death, to do everything that we judge 
 consistent with the cause of religion in America and the 
 political interests of these States to preserve and promote our 
 union with the Methodistsln Europe." 
 
 This was a courteous recognition of Mr. Wesley; 
 but, as will be seen, it had no practical value. 
 
CHAPTER IX. 
 
 THE CONFERENCES FROM 1785 TO 1789. 
 
 with the year 1785, the title of 
 JL) the Annual Minutes was changed. Before it 
 read : u Minutes of Some Conversations Between the 
 Preachers in Connection with the Reverend Mr. John 
 Wesley. Begun at - and ended at - ; ." Now 
 the form became : " Minutes Taken at the Several 
 Annual Conferences of the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church for the Year -- ." 
 
 This was the beginning of a formal recognition 
 of distinct bodies called Annual Conferences; but the 
 evolution was not yet complete. They were now 
 separate bodies in one sense ; but for law-making pur- 
 poses all had to be taken together to make the gov- 
 erning unit. 
 
 In 1785 three Conferences were held, the first at 
 Green Hills, North Carolina, on the 20th of April ; 
 the next at Mr. Mas'on's, in Brunswick County, Vir- 
 ginia, on the first day of May ; and the third in Bal- 
 timore, on the first day of June. 1 
 
 Lee remarks : " This was the first time we had 
 more than one regular Conference in the same year. 
 For a few years before this we had two Conferences 
 in the same year; but they were considered only as 
 
 i Lee's History of Methodists, 1810, p. 118. 
 
 267 
 
268 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 one, first begun in one place and adjourned to an- 
 other. Now there were three, and no adjournment." 
 Continuing he says: "The business of the three Con- 
 ferences was all arranged in the Minutes as if it had 
 all been done at one time and place; and, for the 
 first time, we had the Annual Minutes printed, which 
 practice we have followed ever since." l 
 
 Lee also says : " This year and the two succeeding 
 years the Minutes were called ' Minutes of the Gen- 
 eral Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
 in America.'" 2 The reprint of 1813 which is at 
 hand does not give this form; but Mr. Lee may be 
 correct, and probably is, for he wrote his " History of 
 the Methodists in the United States of America" in 
 1809, and may have had in his possession the earliest 
 impressions. If he is accurate in his statement, then 
 in the reprint a change was made in the title; but the 
 title he gives suggests a fact of much value ; namely, 
 that the members of all the Annual Conferences consti- 
 tuted the General Conference, and though they might 
 not come together in one place, yet that agreed upon 
 by each and all of the Annual Conferences was 
 equivalent to the action of the. General Conference 
 when assembled in one place. 
 
 The Annual Minutes give names, figures, and 
 decisions as though there was only one meeting. 
 The Annual Conferences are becoming distinct in 
 membership; but the law-making power belongs to 
 all, and nothing can become a law unless adopted by 
 every Annual Conference; and, when so adopted, it is 
 
 Jesse Lee, History of Methodists, 1K10, p. 118. 
 
'THE CONFERENCES FROM 1785 TO 1789. 260 
 
 equivalent to the action of all, meeting in one place in 
 a consolidated General Conference. 
 
 Dr. Stevens says : " The Christmas Conference 
 was the first General Conference; that is to say, all 
 the Annual Conferences were supposed to be there 
 assembled. It was, therefore, the supreme judicatory 
 of the Church. It was not yet a delegated body, 
 but the whole ministry in session. It made no pro- 
 vision for any future session of the kind; but for 
 some years legislative enactments were made as here- 
 tofore, every new measure being submitted to each 
 Annual Conference by the superintendents, and the 
 majority of all being necessary to its validity. . . . 
 Until the appointment of stated or regular General 
 Conferences the Annual Conferences continued to be 
 considered local or sectional meetings of the one un- 
 divided ministry, held in different localities, for the 
 local convenience of its members, every general or 
 legislative measure being submitted, as we have" seen, 
 to all the sessions before it could become a law. . . . 
 The Annual Conference was, therefore, still the su- 
 preme assembly of the Church, except when, by its 
 appointment, a General Conference that is to say, a 
 collective assembly of the Annual Conference should 
 intervene." l 
 
 So Dr. Bangs observes : " It seems that heretofore 
 there had been held only one regular Conference in 
 a year ; for, though some of the preachers had as- 
 sembled in separate places, for the dispatch of their 
 
 i A. Stevens, History of Methodist Episcopal Church, New York, 
 1865, Vol. II, pp. 219-221. 
 
270 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 local affairs, the regular Conference was considered 
 one and indivisible as to all matters of a general 
 character. But as the work enlarged, new circuits 
 formed, and additional laborers entered the field ; 
 and these scattered over such a large surface of 
 country, it became inconvenient for all the preachers 
 to assemble together in one place. Hence this year 
 (1785) there were held three Conferences, one at 
 Green Hills in North Carolina, April 20th; another 
 at Mr. Mason's, Brunswick County, Virginia, May 
 1st; and the other at Baltimore, on the first day of 
 June. But though the business was transacted in 
 three separate Conferences, their doings appeared in 
 the Minutes as one, because nothing except the sta- 
 tioning of the preachers, was considered binding 
 which was done in one Conference, unless approved 
 by all the rest." l 
 
 Lee, referring to the printed Minutes of 1785, re- 
 marks that " the form of the Minutes of Conference 
 was changed this year, and all the elders who were 
 directed to take the oversight of several circuits were 
 set to the right hand of a bracket, which inclosed all 
 the circuits and preachers "of which he was to take 
 charge. This may be considered as the beginning 
 of the presiding elder's office; although it was not 
 known by that name at that time, yet, in the absence 
 of a superintendent, this elder had the directing of all 
 the preachers that were inclosed in the bracket 
 against which his name was set." 2 
 
 Nathan Bangs, D. D., History of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
 New York, 10th Ed., pp. 243, 244. This work was written in 1838. 
 2 Jesse Lee, History of the Methodists, 1810, pp. 119, 120. 
 
THE CONFERENCES EROM 1785 fo 1789. 271 
 
 In the reprint of 1813 the name of the elder 
 stands at the head of the list of appointments and 
 preachers, and it was his duty to administer the sac- 
 raments within the bounds of the charges named. 
 Brackets are used in this edition where there are 
 more names connected with a circuit than can be 
 placed in one line. In this arrangement is a fore- 
 shadowing of the presiding-eldership and also of the 
 division of a Conference into districts over which 
 the presiding elders would have supervision. 
 
 The Minutes for 1785 show only one action of a 
 legislative character, namely: 
 
 " It is recommended to all onr brethren to suspend the 
 execution of the minute on slavery till the deliberations of a 
 future Conference, and that an equal space of time be allowed 
 all our members for consideration, when the minute shall be 
 put in force. 
 
 " N. B. We do hold in the deepest abhorrence the practice 
 of slavery ; and shall not cease to seek its destruction by all 
 wise and prudent means." l 
 
 The edition of the Discipline printed in London 
 in 1786 omits Question 23 on the use of " Spirituous 
 Liquors/' the Rule on Slavery, that on supplying va- 
 cancies on circuits, and that on the trial of preachers. 
 These changes suggest the fact that in the early years 
 following the reorganization of 1784 the Minutes of 
 the Conferences do not record changes which were 
 made in the Discipline. The proceedings have been 
 lost and only the results retained, and now and then 
 changes are made for which there is no evidence to 
 prove that the Conferences were responsible. 
 
 i Methodist Conferences, 1773-1813, p. 55. 
 
272 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 This year a second edition of the Sunday Service 
 was printed in London. The title of the edition of 
 1784 was, as we have already learned, " The Sunday 
 Service of the Methodists in North America," while 
 the edition of 1786 reads, " The Sunday Service of 
 the Methodists in the United States of America," 
 showing that North America was used by Wesley in 
 the sense of the United States of America; and so in 
 the title to the Form of Discipline made in 1784, 
 "Methodist Episcopal Church in America" meant 
 " The Methodist Episcopal Church in the United 
 States of America." 
 
 The Minutes for 1786 do not show any action of 
 a legislative character, but they mention the fact that 
 Edward Dromgoole and William Glendenning, who 
 have been frequently mentioned in the preceding 
 pages had " desisted from traveling." The latter states 
 that he " stopped traveling in the month of June, 
 1785." l Referring to this matter Lee says that "by 
 some means he lost his reason." 2 
 
 This is the man who, in 1784, Asbury de- 
 clared " had been devising a plan " to lay Asbury 
 aside, "or at least to abridge" his powers. At the 
 Conference of that year, after Glendenning and any 
 others who held his views had been silenced by the 
 reading of Wesley's letter to which reference has 
 been made, 3 Mr. Glendenning was sent to Brunswick 
 in the southern part of Virginia. He thus gives his 
 experience while in that locality : " My mind got 
 more and more darkened, and I lost sight of my 
 
 1 Autobiography of William Glendenning, Philadelphia, 1795, p. 16. 
 
 2 Jesse Lee, History of the Methodists, 1810, p. 122. 
 Pages 210,211,212. 
 
CONFERENCES FROM 1785 TO 1789. 273 
 
 reconciled God, and all spiritual comforts departed 
 from me." 1 
 
 At the Christmas Conference he says: "They 
 wanted me to go as a missionary to Nova Scotia; 
 which I refused with warmth." 1 At the same Con- 
 ference he was proposed for elder's orders, but was 
 not elected. Referring to this he remarks : " I was 
 rejected from the eldership. The reason assigned 
 was, that I wanted gifts" After this he says : " While 
 Mr. Asbury was at prayer, I felt all light of divine 
 mercy, as in a moment, take its flight from me. My soul 
 then sunk into the depths of misery and despair." 3 
 
 In 1792 he desired to be restored to Confer- 
 ence membership, but Lee remarks : " The Confer- 
 ence believed him to be beside himself at that time, 
 and would not receive him." 4 
 
 The Conference of 1787 is memorable in many re- 
 spects. Wesley directed that a General Conference 
 be held that year, as will be seen by the following 
 letter addressed to Dr. Coke : 
 
 " LONDON, September 6, 1786. 
 
 "DEAR SIR, I desire that you would appoint a 
 General Conference of all our preachers in the United 
 States to meet at Baltimore on May 1, 1787, and 
 that Mr. Richard Whatcoat may be appointed super- 
 intendent with Mr. Francis Asbury. I am, dear sir, 
 your affectionate friend and brother, 
 
 " JOHN WESLEY. 
 
 " To the REV. DR. COKE." 
 
 i Life of William Glendenning, Philadelphia, 1795, pp. 11, 12. 
 
 7d.,p. 13. sJd., p. 14. 
 
 Jesse Lee, History of the Methodists, 1810, pp. 122, 123. 
 
274 GOVERNING CONF^RKNC^ IN METHODISM. 
 
 Coke, in obedience to Wesley's desire, came to 
 America to hold a General Conference ; but it appears 
 that there was no regularly called General Conference, 
 though the session at Baltimore has been frequently 
 so styled because it undertook to transact that which 
 was really General Conference business. 
 
 Sherman, referring to the Baltimore Conference 
 of 1787, says: "By some this has been incorrectly 
 classed as a General Conference. That Wesley or- 
 dered one, and that Dr. Coke came over to hold it, 
 is true; but the plan was . . warmly resisted by 
 Asbury and his associates. . . . The Conference was 
 simply annual, though much business was transacted, 
 such as now pertains to the General Conference. But 
 this does not prove it to have been a General Con- 
 ference, as all such matters were then arranged in 
 the Annual Conference of other years as well as 
 this." 1 
 
 Lee throws considerable light on the acts of the 
 Baltimore session of 1787. From what he tells us, it 
 is manifest that the Conference did not hesitate to crit- 
 icise Dr. Coke. This shows how jealous the Confer- 
 ence was as to its rights. Whether Mr. Asbury sym- 
 pathized with the move of the Conference is not clear. 
 He was in the United States all the time while Dr. 
 Coke was flitting here and there, managing affairs 
 not only in the United States, but also rendering 
 valuable service to Wesley by directing his work 
 
 i David Sherman, D. D., History of the Discipline of the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church, New YoVk, 3d Ed., 1890, p. 28. 
 
CONFERENCES FROM 1785 TO 1789. 275 
 
 in England and Ireland and in distant British pos- 
 sessions. 
 
 Lee relates that "at. the Baltimore Conference the 
 preachers complained of Dr. Coke because he had 
 taken upon himself a right which they never gave 
 him, of altering the time and place of holding our 
 Conferences after it had been settled and fixed on at 
 the previous Conference. Another complaint was 
 brought against him for writing improper letters to 
 some of our preachers, such as were calculated to stir 
 up strife and contention among them. At that time 
 the Doctor saw that the preachers were pretty gener- 
 ally united against him. He acknowledged his faults, 
 begged pardon, and promised not to meddle with our 
 affairs again when he was out of the United States. 
 He then gave in writing a certificate to the same pur- 
 pose, which is as follows : 
 
 "'THE CERTIFICATE OP DR. COKE TO THE CONFERENCE. 
 
 " ' I do solemnly engage by this instrument that I never 
 will, by virtue of my office as superintendent of the Methodist 
 Church, during my absence from the United States of Amer- 
 ica, exercise any government whatever in the said Methodist 
 Church during my absence from the United States. And I do 
 also engage that I will exercise no privilege in the said Church 
 when present in the United States, except that of ordaining 
 according to the regulations and law already existing, or here- 
 after to be made, in the said Church; and that of presiding 
 when present in Conference; and lastly that of traveling at 
 large. Given under my hand the second day of May, in the 
 year 1787. THOMAS COKE. 
 
 " ' Witnesses : 
 
 " ' JOHN TUNNIL, 
 
 11 ' JOHN HAQERTY, 
 
 "'NELSON REED.' 
 
276 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 " The preachers then agreed to forgive what was 
 past, provided this condition should be expressed in 
 the Minutes, which was done thus : 4 
 
 " ' Ques. Who are the superintendents of our Church for 
 the United States ? 
 
 "'Ans. Thomas Coke (when present in the States) and 
 Francis Asbury.' " l 
 
 Thus was affirmed, first, the authority of the Con- 
 ference over the superintendent; secondly, the prin- 
 ciple that the superintendency was for the United 
 States; and, thirdly, that when not in the United 
 States, and being thus out of his jurisdiction, a su- 
 perintendent could not exercise the functions of his 
 office as to matters in the United States. 
 
 At the Conference of 1786 it was agreed that the 
 next year Conferences would be held at Salisbury, 
 North Carolina, May 17th; at Petersburg, Virginia, 
 June 19th; and at Abingdou, Maryland, July 24th; 2 
 but several changes were made. 
 
 Lee says : " In 1787 we had three Conferences. 
 The twentieth Conference was held at Salisbury, in 
 North Carolina, on the 17th day of March; the 
 twenty-first Conference was held at Rough Creek 
 Church, in Virginia, on the 19th day of April; the 
 twenty-second Conference was held at Baltimore, on 
 the 1st day of May." 3 
 
 These changes were made to accommodate Coke, 
 and appear to have given rise to the above mentioned 
 
 1 Jesse Lee, History of Methodists, 1810, pp. 124-126. 
 
 2 Printed Minutes, 1773-1813, p. 61. 
 
 Jesse Lee, History of Methodists, 1810, p. 124. 
 
THE CONFERENCES FROM 1785 TO 1789. 277 
 
 action. Coke thus comments on the trouble: "Con- 
 ference began, when, behold, Satan exerted his utmost 
 subtilty. Never, surely, was more external peace and 
 liberty enjoyed by the Church of God, or any part of 
 it, since the fall of man, than we enjoy in America; 
 and everything seems to be falling before the power 
 of the Word. What, then, remained for the infernal 
 serpent but to sow the seeds of schism and division 
 among ourselves? But glory be to God! yea, glory 
 forever be ascribed to his sacred name! the devil was 
 completely defeated. Our painful contests, I trust, 
 have produced the most indissoluble union between 
 my brethren and me. We thoroughly perceived the 
 mutual purity of each other's intentions in respect to 
 the points in dispute. We mutually yielded and mu- 
 tually submitted, and the silken cords of love and 
 affection were tied to the horns of the altar forever 
 and ever." 
 
 The greatest difficulty, however, grew out of Mr. 
 Wesley's attempt to direct the Conference in the 
 selection of superintendents. Mr. Wesley evidently 
 believed he had that right, and the organizing Con- 
 vention or Conference of 1784 had by formal reso- 
 lution agreed, "in matters belonging to Church gov- 
 ernment, to obey his commands." Now, however, 
 when the test is reached, the Conference resents the 
 assertion of authority on the part of the founder of 
 Methodism. 
 
 One of those nominated at this time by Mr. Wes- 
 ley was the Rev. Freeborn Garrettson ; the other was 
 the Rev, Richard Whatcoat. In 1785, Mr. Garrett- 
 
278 GOVERNING CONFERENCE: IN METHODISM. 
 
 son expected to be appointed to Charleston, South 
 Carolina; but, as the Minutes show, he was sent to 
 Shelburne, 1 which was in Nova Scotia. Garrettson, 
 alluding to this, writes: "And, instead of Charleston, 
 I had an appointment to take charge of the work in 
 the East. I was tempted (if it was a temptation) to 
 think that the nomination was partial; however, I 
 was resolved, with the blessing of the Lord, to go, 
 as long as my strength would admit, anywhere and 
 everywhere, as might be thought best." 2 
 
 Lee says : " In the month of April, this year 
 (1787), Mr. Freeborn Garrettson left Nova Scotia, 
 and returned to the United States; and from that 
 time he has continued in his own native country. 
 Mr. Wesley had given directions for Brother F. Gar- 
 rettson to be ordained a superintendent for Nova 
 Scotia; but when the business was taken under con- 
 sideration, some of the preachers insisted that if he 
 was ordained for that station, he should confine him- 
 self wholly to that place for which he was set apart, 
 and not be at liberty to return again to this part of 
 the country. Mr. Garrettson did not feel freedom to 
 enter into an obligation of that kind, and chose 
 rather to continue as he was, and therefore was not 
 ordained." 3 
 
 Mr. Garrettson,. after recounting various incidents 
 of his journey, remarks: "I then pursued my way to 
 Baltimore, where many of the dear servants of God 
 
 1 Minutes of Methodist Conferences, 1773-1813, p. 55. 
 
 2 Autobiography of Rev. Freeborn Garrettson, 1791, p. 199. 
 
 3 Jesse Lee, History of the Methodists, Baltimore, 1810, p. 126. 
 
THE CONFERENCES FROM 1785 TO 1789. 279 
 
 met in Conference. It was the desire of Mr. Wesley 
 and others that I should be set apart for the super- 
 intendency of the work in Nova Scotia. My mind 
 was divided. Man is a fallible creature. In the 
 end I concluded not to leave the States, for thou- 
 sands in this country are dear to me. On the whole 
 we had a blessed Conference, and my appointment was 
 to preside in the Peninsula." 1 
 
 As Mr. Lee's statement shows, the Conference of 
 1787 not only refused to let its own superintendent 
 exercise power in the United States when he was out 
 of the United States, but also refused to set apart a 
 superintendent for a foreign field, unless he would 
 remain in that field and limit his jurisdiction to that 
 locality. They meant that one made a superintendent 
 for a foreign jurisdiction should not have any such 
 official power within the United States. 
 
 Lee also throws light upon the refusal of the 
 Conference to elect Whatcoat to the superintendency 
 at this time. He observes that "Mr. Wesley also 
 directed that Richard Whatcoat should be ordained a 
 joint superintendent with Mr. Asbury. When this 
 business was brought before the Conference most of 
 the preachers objected, and would not consent to it. 
 The reasons against it were: 1. That he was not 
 qualified to take the charge of the Connection. 
 2. That they were apprehensive that if Mr. What- 
 coat was ordained, Mr. Wesley would likely recall 
 Mr. Asbury, and he would return to England. Dr. 
 Coke contended that we were obliged to receive Mr. 
 
 1 Freeborn Garrettson's Autobiography, 1791, p. 220. 
 
280 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 Whatcoat, because we had said in the Minutes, taken 
 at the Christmas Conference, when we were first 
 formed into a Church in 1784, ' During the life of 
 the Rev. Mr. Wesley we acknowledge ourselves his 
 sons in the gospel, ready in matters belonging to 
 Church government to obey his commands. 7 Many 
 of the members of that Conference argued that they 
 were not at the Conference when that engagement 
 was entered into, and they did not consider them- 
 selves bound by it. Other preachers, who had said 
 they were ( ready to obey his commands/ said they 
 did not feel ready now to obey his command. The 
 preachers at last agreed to depart from that engage- 
 ment, which some of the elder brethren had formally 
 entered into, and in the next printed Minutes that 
 engagement was left out. 
 
 "They had made the engagement of their own 
 accord, and among themselves; and they believed 
 they had a right to depart therefrom when they 
 pleased, seeing it was not a contract made with Mr. 
 Wesley or any other person, but an agreement among 
 themselves. It was further argued that Mr. Wesley, 
 while in England, could not tell what man was quali- 
 fied to govern us as well as we could who were 
 present and were to be governed. We believed also 
 that, if Mr. Wesley was here himself, he would be of 
 the same opinion with us. 
 
 " We then wrote a long and loving letter to Mr. 
 Wesley, and requested him to come over to America 
 and visit his spiritual children. 
 
 " This step of receding from the above engage- 
 
THE CONFERENCES FROM 1785 TO 1789. 281 
 
 ment was afterwards considered by some disaffected 
 persons as improper. If there was anything im- 
 proper in the business, it was in entering into the 
 engagement, and not in departing from it." 1 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Garrettson gives it as his opinion, 
 that " the fear arising in the minds of many of the 
 members of the Conference lest Mr. Wesley should 
 recall Mr. Asbury, was the cause of R. Whatcoat's 
 appointment being rejected." 2 
 
 The Rev. Thomas Ware, who was at the Confer- 
 ence) gives us a narration which corresponds with 
 the statements of Lee and other contemporaries. He 
 says: 
 
 "In the spring of 1787 Dr. Coke visited us 
 again, and called the preachers to meet in Confer- 
 ence at Baltimore on the 1st day of May. The lib- 
 erty he took in changing the time and place of hold- 
 ing the Conference gave serious offense to many of the 
 preachers. But this was not all nor even the chief 
 matter which caused some trouble at this Confer- 
 ence. Mr. Wesley had appointed Mr. Whatcoat a 
 superintendent, and instructed Dr. Coke to introduce 
 a usage among us, to which, I may safely say, there 
 was not one of the preachers inclined to submit, 
 much as they loved and honored him. Mr. Wesley 
 had been in the habit of calling his preachers to- 
 gether, not to legislate, but to confer. Many of 
 them he found to be excellent counselors, and he 
 heard them respectfully on the weighty matters 
 
 i Jesse Lee, Hist, of the Methodists, Baltimore, 1810, pp. 126, 127. 
 >Rev. Freeborn Garrettson's Semi-centennial Sermon, p. 20. 
 19 
 
282 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 which were brought before them; but the right to 
 decide all questions he reserved to himself. This he 
 deemed the more excellent way ; and, as we had vol- 
 unteered and pledged ourselves to obey, he in- 
 structed the Doctor, conformably to his own usage, 
 to put as few questions to vote as possible, saying: 
 ' If you, Brother Asbury and Brother Whatcoat, are 
 agreed, it is enough.' To place the power of de- 
 ciding all questions discussed, or nearly all, in the 
 hands of the superintendents, was what could never 
 be introduced among us a fact which we thought 
 Mr. Wesley could not but have known, had he 
 known us as well as we ought to have been known 
 by Dr. Coke. After all, we had none to blame as 
 much as ourselves. In the first effusion of our zeal 
 we had adopted a rule binding ourselves to obey Mr. 
 Wesley; and this rule must be rescinded, or we must 
 be content not only to receive Mr. Whatcoat as one 
 of our superintendents, but also as our brethren of 
 the British Conference with barely discussing sub- 
 jects, and leaving the decision of them to two or 
 three individuals. This was the chief cause of our 
 rescinding the rule. All, however, did not vote to 
 rescind it; some thought it would be time enough 
 to do so when our superintendents should claim 
 to decide questions independently of the Confer- 
 ence, which it was confidently believed they never 
 would do. 
 
 " We were under many and great obligations to 
 Mr. Wesley, and also to Dr. Coke, who had done 
 much to serve us, and all at their own expense. As 
 
THE CONFERENCES FROM 1785 TO 1789. 283 
 
 to Mr. Wesley, there were none of us disposed to ac- 
 cuse him of a desire to tyrannize over us, and, in con- 
 sequence, to withdraw our love and confidence from 
 him ; but there was, perhaps, with some, a lack of 
 cautiousness not to cause grief to such a father. 
 There were also suspicions entertained by some of 
 the preachers, and perhaps by Mr. Asbury himself, 
 that if Mr. Whatcoat were received as a superintend- 
 ent, Mr. Asbury would be recalled. For this none of 
 us were prepared." 1 
 
 The Rev. William Phoebus, who also was a mem- 
 ber of the Conference of 1787, states that Dr. Coke 
 had '* some directions from Mr, Wesley to give the 
 Conference, in which directions Richard Whatcoat 
 was nominated for a third superintendent. One ven- 
 tured to say that Mr. Wesley took too much on him 
 yea, too much to be borne with by Americans; that 
 he might increase his impositions if his power were 
 not checked; it might grow enormous, even to 
 popery." 2 
 
 Asbury appears to have been opposed to the res- 
 olution of submission from the beginning. In a let- 
 ter to the Rev. Joseph Benson he remarks : " After 
 the Revolution we were called upon to give a printed 
 obligation, which here follows, and could not be dis- 
 pensed with it must be." Again he says: "I 
 never approved of that binding minute. I did not 
 think it practical expediency to obey Mr. Wesley at 
 
 1 Bev. Thomas Ware's Autobiography, New York, 1840, pp. 129-131. 
 
 * Memoirs of the Rev. Richard Whatcoat, Late Bishop of the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church, by Hev. Wm. Phoabus, M. D., New York, 
 1828. 
 
284 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 three thousand miles distance in all matters relative 
 to Church government." l 
 
 Referring to Mr. Wesley's assertion of authority, 
 Asbury states : " He rigidly contended for a special 
 and independent right of governing the chief min- 
 ister or ministers of our order, which, in our judg- 
 ment, meant not only to put him out of office, but to 
 remove him from the continent to elsewhere that our 
 father saw fit; and that notwithstanding our consti- 
 tution and the right of electing every Church officer, 
 and more especially our superintendent. We were 
 told ' not till after the death of Mr. Wesley' could 
 our constitution have its full operation." 2 
 
 In England it was not until the decease of Mr. 
 Wesley that the Deed of Declaration made the British 
 Conference a self-governing body, and it seems that 
 some one tried to show that the same principle ap- 
 plied to the reorganized body in America, but the 
 cases were widely different. Under the Deed of Dec- 
 laration property rights were involved, and the Con- 
 ference could only come into control upon the death 
 of Mr. Wesley, who enjoyed the right as long as he 
 lived. The Deed of Declaration conveyed powers to 
 the Conference which under law vested in John 
 Wesley during his life-time. With the American 
 Methodists the case was different and the circum- 
 stances were different. Mr. Wesley did not convey 
 to them in a legal document rights which inhered in 
 
 1 Asbury 's Letter to the Rev. Joseph Benson. 
 
 2 Asbury 's Letter to the Rev. Joseph Benson; See Centennial His- 
 tory of American Methodism, by Rev. John Atkinson, D. D., New 
 York, 1884, p. 57. 
 
THE CONFERENCES FROM 1785 TO 1789. 285 
 
 him. They were in another land and under other 
 laws, and under the liberty of the United States they 
 formed themselves into a Church. The cases were 
 not parallel. 
 
 The part Asbury had in this matter has been the 
 subject of considerable controversy. It is said that 
 he at first acquiesced in Wesley's plan to have What- 
 coat made a superintendent, and that the first Confer- 
 ence of the year did likewise. " When the matter was 
 brought before the Virginia Conference it was strongly 
 opposed by James O'Kelly. This opposition surprised 
 and pained Dr. Coke. It was agreed, however, to 
 submit the case for final decision to the Conference 
 soon to be held in Baltimore, ' on condition that the 
 Virginia Conference might send a deputy to explain 
 their sentiments/ 1 At the Baltimore Conference the 
 bishops called the elders into council to consider it, 
 and they, notwithstanding Coke's advocacy, decided 
 adversely." 2 
 
 James O'Kelly, some years after the agreement to 
 obey Wesley had been stricken out, charged that Mr. 
 Asbury was the chief agent in the transaction. In 
 his " Apology " O'Kelly said : " After these things 
 Francis took with him a few chosen men, and in a 
 clandestine manner expelled John, whose surname 
 was Wesley, from the Methodist Episcopal Church." 
 
 To this the Rev. Nicholas Snethen published a 
 
 iRev. Nicholas Snethen's Reply to Mr. O'Kelly's Apology for Pro- 
 testing against the Methodist Episcopal Church Government, Phila- 
 delphia, 1800. 
 
 2 Rev. John Atkinson, D. D., Centennial History of American Meth- 
 odism, New York, 1884, p. 58. 
 
286 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 " Reply," in which he said : " At a Conference held 
 in Baltimore, May 1, 1787, a vote was taken that 
 Richard Whatcoat should not be ordained superin- 
 tendent, and that Mr. Wesley's name should for the 
 future be left off the American Minutes. Mr. Asbury 
 neither made the motion nor advocated it; the whole 
 case was constitutionally carried through the Confer- 
 ence, and voted by a fair majority." l 
 
 In regard to this Mr. Asbury himself has said : 
 "At the first General Conference I was mute and 
 modest when it passed, and I was mute when it was 
 expunged." 
 
 On the other side the Atlantic, Thomas Ran kin, 
 his old colleague, charged the act on Asbury. Mr. 
 Snethen, who traveled with Asbury as early as 1800, 
 says : " Mr. Asbury considered Mr. Rankin in the 
 light of an opponent, and it is certain that if there 
 was any dependence to be placed in the correspond- 
 ence of his English friend, Mr. Rankin did use all 
 his influence with Mr. Wesley to have him recalled. 
 Mr. Asbury was informed that when the news ar- 
 rived that Mr. Wesley's name was left off the Ameri- 
 can Minutes, Mr. Rankin, who was present, without 
 waiting for the evidence, exclaimed, ( That's Frank 
 Asbury's doings.' " 2 
 
 In a letter to the Rev. Joseph Benson, Mr. Asbury 
 affirms that "the counsel of Diotrephes [undoubtedly 
 Rankin], in a full Conference, was in substance this: 
 
 iSnethen's Reply to Mr. O'Kelly's Apology for Protesting against 
 the Methodist Episcopal Church Government, Philadelphia, 1800. 
 
 2 Rev. Nicholas Suethen's Methodist History, in the Wesleyan 
 Repository. 
 
THE CONFERENCES FROM 1785 TO 1789. 287 
 
 'If he had the power and authority of Mr. Wesley 
 he would call Frank Asbury home directly/ John 
 Harper was the man who was present in Conference 
 and heard this advice given, and told me several years 
 after in America with his own mouth." It seems 
 very evident that there was involved not only the 
 question as to Wesley's power to nominate a new 
 superintendent, but also his power to depose one al- 
 ready in the office 
 
 The Rev. Thomas Morrell, who was " admitted on 
 trial" at the Conference of 1787, has given an ac- 
 count of the affair in a pamphlet, entitled " Truth 
 Discovered," in which he says : 
 
 "Early in 1787, Mr. Wesley intimated a design of 
 removing Mr. Asbury from America to Europe, and 
 of sending us a superintendent of his own nomina- 
 tion. When the Conference assembled, some of the 
 eldest and most sensible of the elders observed that 
 Mr. Wesley had no authority to remove Mr. Asbury, 
 much less could he impose a superintendent on us 
 without our choice; for it was written in our Consti- 
 tution that 'no person should be ordained a superin- 
 tendent over us without the consent of the majority 
 of the Conference/ that no such consent had been 
 given ; that though they highly venerated Mr. Wes- 
 ley, and were willing to receive his advice, and pre- 
 serve and promote our union with him and our Meth- 
 odist brethren in Europe, as far as the political 
 interest of our country would authorize us, yet they 
 could not give up their rights to any man on earth. 
 And after a number of arguments to show the impro- 
 
288 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 priety and impolicy of any man having the power to 
 exercise such an uncontrollable and unlimited author- 
 ity over us as Mr. Wesley wished to do, and to pre- 
 vent him from exercising this power in the present 
 case by virtue of his name standing at the head of 
 the Minutes, they moved that it should be struck off. 
 The vote was carried, and his name was omitted. 
 Mr. Wesley complained that we were ungrateful. 
 We felt ourselves grieved that the good old man was 
 hurt, and determined to give him every satisfaction 
 in our power consistent with our rights; and in 1789 
 the Conference consented that his name should be 
 restored on the Minutes, in testimony of our union 
 with and respect for him, but inserted in such a man- 
 ner as to preclude him from exercising an unconstitu- 
 tional power over us." l 
 
 Wesley felt aggrieved. Asbury says that Mr. 
 Wesley was told "that no sooner had he granted the 
 Americans what they wished than they declared them- 
 selves independent of him." 2 
 
 Wesley blamed Asbury, and thus wrote to What- 
 coat: "It was not well judged of Brother Asbury to 
 suffer, much less indirectly encourage, the foolish step 
 in the last Conference. Every preacher present 
 ought, both in duty and in prudence, to have said: 
 ' Brother Asbury, Mr. Wesley is your father, conse- 
 quently ours/ Candor will affirm this in the face of 
 the world. It is highly probable that disallowing me 
 
 1 Rev. John Atkinson, D. D., Centennial History of American Meth- 
 odism, New York, 1884, pp. 61, 62. 
 
 2 Asbury 's Letter to Rev. Joseph Benson. 
 
THE CONFERENCES FROM 1785 TO 1789. 289 
 
 will, as soon as my head is laid, occasion a total 
 breach between the English and American Method- 
 ists. They will naturally say : ' If they can do with- 
 out us, we can do without them/ But they would 
 find a greater difference than they imagine. Next 
 would follow a separation among themselves." l 
 
 Again, in a letter, dated October 31, 1789, 2 Wes- 
 ley said : " I was a little surprised when I received 
 some letters from Mr. Asbury, affirming that no per- 
 son in Europe knew how to direct those in America. 
 Soon after, he flatly refused to receive Mr. Whatcoat 
 in the character I sent him. He told George Shad- 
 ford: 'Mr. Wesley and I are like CaBsar and 
 Pompey he will bear no equal, and I will bear no 
 superior/ 3 And accordingly he quietly sat by until 
 his friends voted my name out of the American Min- 
 utes. This completed the matter, and showed that he 
 had no connection with me." 
 
 To these charges Mr. Asbury thus replied: "And 
 why was I thus charged? Because I did not estab- 
 lish Mr. Wesley's absolute authority over the Ameri- 
 can Connection. For myself, this I had submitted 
 to; but the Americans were too jealous to bind them- 
 selves to yield to him in all things relative to Church 
 government. Mr. Wesley was a man they had never 
 seen was three thousand miles off; how might sub- 
 mission in such a case be expected? Brother Coke 
 
 i Memoirs of Bishop Whatcoat, by Wm. Phoebus, M. D., New 
 York, 1828. 
 
 a Published by Rev. Wm. Hammett, in Charleston, South Carolina. 
 
 3 It is supposed that Wesley was mistaken in attributing this lan- 
 guage to Asbury. 
 
290 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 and myself gave offense to the Connection by en- 
 forcing Mr. Wesley's will in some matters." 
 
 Asbury admits that he was mute when the agree- 
 ment was expunged from the Minutes; or, to speak 
 more accurately, from the Discipline. Whether he 
 took an active part in the movement has, to-day, lit- 
 tle practical value. For him to be mute under such 
 circumstances was to give encouragement to those 
 who were opposed to Wesley's supremacy. 
 
 If Asbury had been openly opposed, it would 
 have been simply to have voiced his convictions. 
 After the agreement of 1784, it might have been 
 necessary for him to have explained his action to 
 Mr. Wesley ; but posterity would not demand any 
 apology. 
 
 Asbury was right when he maintained that a man 
 residing beyond an ocean three thousand miles wide 
 could not direct American Methodism. Whatever 
 may have been his motive, even if it was to make 
 himself more independent, the action needs no apology, 
 but was productive of great good. 
 
 It was absurd to suppose that even a Wesley could, 
 under such conditions, direct a growing Church in a 
 remote Eepublic. The young Church was competent 
 to care for itself, and would not brook foreign inter- 
 ference, no matter by whom exerted. 
 
 To state the matter in brief, the vital question was 
 whether Mr. Wesley should have power to control in 
 American affairs. The Conference settled ^t by refus- 
 ing to set apart for the superintendency the persons 
 he had named, and by striking out the paragraph in 
 
THE CONFERENCES FROM 1785 TO 1789. 291 
 
 which the Christmas Conference had agreed to obey 
 his commands. The Conference of the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church in the United States of America 
 had decided that it would govern the Church, and 
 that neither Mr. Wesley nor any other individual at 
 home or abroad should rule either the Conference or 
 the Church represented by the Conference. The action 
 was an ecclesiastical Declaration of Independence. 
 
 However, there was not universal satisfaction in 
 America; for the reverence for Mr. Wesley was 
 very great. Dr. Phoebus tells us : " This was a time 
 of trial with many, who laid it to heart. It was 
 feared that part would continue a society, or form 
 again under Mr. Wesley, independent of the Method- 
 ist Episcopal Church in America. Many felt like 
 being scattered, when the shepherd had received so 
 many blows from his friends." l 
 
 Mr. Snethen says the removal of Wesley's name 
 from the Minutes, as it was commonly termed, "gave 
 rise to feelings of a very unpleasant nature. Dr. 
 Coke actually commenced the complaint in the pul- 
 pit, and \vas only restrained by the timely and reso- 
 lute interference of some of the more judicious of the 
 preachers." 
 
 Nevertheless, it was right that the Church should 
 be independent. The main criticism that can be 
 made upon the affair is, that while the agreement to 
 obey ought to have been annulled, some way should 
 have been found to give Mr. Wesley's name an 
 
 i William Phoebus, M. D., Memoirs of Bishop Richard Whatcoat, 
 New York, 1828, p. 67. 
 
292 GOVERNING CONFERENCE: IN METHODISM. 
 
 honorable place as the founder of the Methodists. 
 Possibly the matter might have been managed 
 more pleasantly ; but the assertion of independence 
 resulted in increased prosperity to the Church, 
 and certainly gave it a right ecclesiastical status. 
 The Conference is now supreme in form as well as 
 in fact. 
 
 In 1787 "Mr. Asbury reprinted the ' General 
 Minutes/ but in a different form from what they were 
 before." l By the " General Minutes " Lee meant 
 what we now understand by the " Discipline " of the 
 Church. The first edition issued after the Christmas 
 Conference was entitled, " Minutes of Several Con- 
 versations," etc., " Composing a Form of Discipline," 
 etc. The edition of 1787 had this title : "A Form of 
 Discipline for the Ministers, Preachers, and Mem- 
 bers of the Methodist Episcopal Church in America," 
 etc., "Arranged under Proper Heads, and Methodized 
 in a More Acceptable and Easy Manner." 
 
 In this " Discipline " for the first time appears the 
 title "bishop" as applied to a superintendent of the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church. Lee says : 
 
 "The third question in the second section, and 
 the answer, read thus: 
 
 " * Qucs. Is there any other business to be done in Con- 
 ference ? 
 
 " ' Ans. The electing and ordaining of bishops, elders, and 
 deacons.' 
 
 " This was the first time that our superintendents 
 ever gave themselves the title of bishops in the 
 
 > Lee's History of Methodists, 1810, p. 127. 
 
THE CONFERENCES FROM 1785 TO 1789. 293 
 
 Minutes. They changed the title themselves, without 
 the consent of the Conference ; and at the next Con- 
 ference they asked the preachers if the word bishop 
 might stand in the Minutes seeing that it was a 
 Scripture name, and the meaning of the word bishop 
 was the same with that of superintendent. 
 
 <( Some of the preachers opposed the alteration, 
 and wished to retain the former title; but a majority 
 of the preachers agreed to let the word bishop re- 
 main ; and in the Annual Minutes for the next year 
 the first question is, 'Who are the bishops of our 
 Church for the United States ?' 
 
 " In the third section of this Form of Discipline, 
 and in the sixth page, it is said : ' We have consti- 
 tuted ourselves into an Episcopal Church under the 
 direction of bishops, elders, deacons, and preachers, 
 according to the form of ordination annexed to our 
 prayer-book, and the regulations laid down in this 
 Form of Discipline/ From that time the name of 
 bishop has been in common use among us, both in 
 conversation and in writing." 1 
 
 As the Minutes for 1787 retain the title superin- 
 tendent and do not use the word bishop, we must in- 
 fer that the new Discipline was issued after the ad- 
 journment of the Conference of that year, and that 
 " the next Conference " that allowed the new title to 
 stand was the Conference of the following year. 
 We must also infer that the word bishop, which ap- 
 pears in the reprint of the Annual Minutes for 1785, 
 was inserted after the Discipline of 1787 had been 
 
 i Jesse Lee, History of the Methodists, Baltimore, 1810, pp. 128, 129. 
 
294 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 issued. 1 The part to which we refer reads as follows : 
 " We thought it best to become an Episcopal Church, 
 making the episcopal office elective and the elected 
 superintendent or bishop amenable to the body of min- 
 isters and preachers. " 2 Then there was the follow- 
 ing foot-note: "As the translators of our version of 
 the Bible have used the English word bishop instead 
 of superintendent, it has been thought by us that it 
 would appear more Scriptural to adopt their term 
 bishop." 3 
 
 From that time superintendent and bishop have 
 been used as synonyms in the Discipline of the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church. A bishop is one who 
 oversees, and a superintendent is an overseer, so that 
 the words have practically the same meaning. At 
 the same time the retention of the word superintend- 
 ent tends to prevent erroneous ideas as to the 
 nature of the episcopal office, for though the word 
 ordination is used somewhat uncertainly by a few of 
 the old writers, the Methodist Episcopal Church has 
 always stood on the foundation laid by Mr. Wesley, 
 that " bishops and presbyters are the same order," 
 and that the distinction between a bishop and an 
 ordinary presbyter is one of office and not of 
 ord 
 
 or. 
 
 1 For fuller treatment of this subject see Evolution of Episcopacy 
 and Organic Methodism, by T. B. Neely, D. D., New York, 1888, pp. 316, 
 317, 337-343. 
 
 2 Minutes of Conferences, 1773-1813, p. 51. 8 Jd., 50. 
 
 *See resolution reaffirming the doctrine, Journal of the General 
 Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 1884, p. 207; Prefatory 
 Note to Consecration of Bishops In Discipline; Neely's Evolution of 
 Episcopacy and Organic Methodism. 
 
THE CONFERENCES FROM 1785 TO 1789. 295 
 
 There is not much in the year 1788 that bears 
 directly upon our theme, but we should quote the 
 remark of Lee, that " when the Minutes of this 
 year were printed, the condition of Dr. Coke's being 
 a bishop ' when in the United States/ was left out, 
 and the question was changed, and was entered thus: 
 " Q. Who are the bishops of our Church for the 
 United States?" "A. Thomas Coke and Francis 
 Asbury." l But there is no doubt the restriction 
 remained in force, though the words were not carried 
 forward in the Minutes. 
 
 In 1785 and 1786 the question in the Minutes 
 was, "Who are the superintendents of our Church?" 
 and the answer was, " Thomas Coke, Francis Asbury ;" 
 but in 1787, when the question of Dr. Coke's juris- 
 diction when not in the United States was decided, 
 the question was changed so that it read : " Who are 
 the superintendents of our Church for the United 
 States?" and the answer was, "Thomas Coke 
 (when present in the States), and Francis Asbury;" 
 and now, in 1788, though the qualifying clause in 
 regard to Bishop Coke is omitted, and the word 
 bishops is substituted for superintendents, the limita- 
 tion to the United States is retained in the form of 
 the question : " Who are the bishops of our Church 
 for the United States?" 2 They were bishops for the 
 United States, and the implication is that they were 
 to exert episcopal functions only in and when in the 
 United States. 
 
 i Jesse Lee ; History of the Methodists, Baltimore, 1810, p. 136. 
 2 Minutes of Conferences, 1773-1813, p. 69. 
 
296 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 In 1789 there were eleven Conferences, 1 and 
 fourteen were appointed for the following year. 
 
 Referring to the Conferences of 1789, Lee re- 
 marks that " several of these Conferences were 
 within thirty or forty miles of each other, which was 
 pretty generally disliked ; but at that time the bishop 
 had the right of appointing as many Conferences as 
 he thought proper, and at such times and places as he 
 judged best; but since then the General Conference 
 fixes the number of Annual Conferences to be held 
 in each year, having appointed the bounds of each of 
 them." 2 
 
 In the Conferences of 1789 an effort was made to 
 show that the Church did not intend any disrespect 
 to the Rev. John Wesley, when the Baltimore Con- 
 ference of 1787 struck out of the Discipline the 
 agreement to obey his commands in matters ecclesi- 
 astical. The Conferences did not restore the an- 
 nulled act, but they went as far as they could to 
 show their regard for the father of Methodism. 
 Lee relates that, "As some persons had complained 
 of our receding from a former engagement made by 
 some of our preachers, that ' during the life of 
 Mr. Wesley, in matters belonging to Church govern- 
 ment, they would obey his commands/ and as others 
 had thought that we did not pay as much respect to 
 Mr. Wesley as we ought, the bishops introduced a 
 question in the Annual Minutes, which was as follows: 
 
 1 Lee's History of the Methodists, 1810, p. 140 ; Minutes of Confer- 
 ences, 1773-1813, p. 76. 
 
 2 Rev. Jesse Lee, History of the Methodists, 1810, p. 140. 
 
CONFERENCES FROM 1785 To 1789. 297 
 
 "' Ques. Who are the persons that exercise the episcopal 
 office in the Methodist Church in Europe and America? 
 
 " l Ans. John Wesley, Thomas Coke, and Francis Asbury, 
 by regular order and succession.' 
 
 "The next question was asked differently from 
 what it had ever been in any of the former Minutes, 
 which stands thus: 
 
 " ' Ques. Who had been elected by the unanimous suffrages 
 of the General Conference to superintend the Methodist Con- 
 nection in America ? 
 
 111 Am. Thomas Coke and Francis Asbury.' " l 
 
 So they recognized John Wesley as the head of 
 Methodism, not only in Europe but also in America, 
 and also recognized him as exercising the episcopal 
 office. Wesley himself said in 1785, a few days after 
 he had ordained ministers for Scotland ; " I firmly be- 
 lieve I am a Scriptural iniaxonoz? as much as any man 
 in England, or in Europe;" 3 yet he called himself a 
 presbyter, and never had any higher ordination than 
 that of an elder. He was an overseer of the Church, 
 and so the Minutes of 1789 recognized him as in the 
 episcopal office, and as performing episcopal functions; 
 but the Conferences took care in the next question to 
 specify that Bishops Coke and Asbury were to super- 
 intend in America. 
 
 Lee says, as we have seen, that the first answer 
 contained the words, " by regular order and succes- 
 sion " but they do not appear in the Minutes as re- 
 printed in 1813, either for 1789 or any other year. 
 
 i Rev. Jesse Lee, Hist, of the Methodists, Baltimore, 1810, p. 142. 
 * Episcopus, a bishop. 
 
 8 Letter of John Wesley to his brother Charles, Methodist Maga- 
 zine, 178d, p. 50. 
 
298 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 Lee states also that the bishops introduced the 
 questions into the Annual Minutes. Probably they 
 did prepare the Minutes for publication ; but, accord- 
 ing to Bishop Coke, the subject had been passed 
 upon by the several Conferences prior to the insertion 
 in the Minutes. In his journal he says: 
 
 " On the 9th of March we began our Conference 
 in Georgia. Here we agreed (as we have ever since 
 in each of the Conferences) that Mr. Wesley's name 
 should be inserted at the head of our Small Annual 
 Minutes and also in the Form of Discipline, in 
 Small Minutes, as the fountain of our episcopal 
 office ; and in the Form of Discipline, as the father 
 of the whole work, under the divine guidance. To 
 this all the Conferences have cheerfully and unani- 
 mously agreed." 
 
 It may be, however, that the Conferences did not 
 pass upon the exact phraseology, but that the bishops, 
 acting as editors, were governed by their own taste in 
 the phrasing. 1 Wesley's name in this new relation 
 appeared in the Annual Minutes only in the years 1789 
 and 1790; for, before the Minutes of 1791 were issued, 
 he had departed this life after a most extraordinary 
 career of goodness, usefulness, and the highest success; 
 and had left behind him an influence which, instead 
 of diminishing in power, seems to be steadily increas- 
 ing, until to-day over twenty-five millions of people 
 who call themselves Methodists revere his memory 
 and perpetuate his principles. 
 
 Evolution of Episcopacy and Organic Methodism, by T. B. 
 Neely, D. D., pp. 345-355. 
 
CHAPTER X. 
 
 THE COUNCIL. 
 
 OINCE the General Conference or organizing Con- 
 O vention of 1784, there had been no single gather- 
 ing which included or represented all the preachers. 
 Even the so-called General Conference of 1787 at 
 Baltimore was not a regularly called General Confer- 
 ence and did not include all the preachers, though it 
 transacted business that properly belonged to a Gen- 
 eral Conference or to the whole "body of ministers 
 and preachers/ 7 ] 
 
 With the exception of what was done at Balti- 
 more alone in 1787, the legislative enactments had 
 passed from Conference to Conference and only that 
 which was agreed to by all the Conferences in any 
 given year became a law. 
 
 This passing of measures around the Conferences 
 was by some deemed an awkward and uncertain 
 method. This fact, and the alleged inconvenience of 
 assembling all the preachers in one place to hold a 
 General Conference, were used as arguments for some 
 new arrangement to facilitate the work of legislation. 
 
 So Bangs says : " In consequence of the exten- 
 sion of the work on every hand, spreading over such 
 a large territory, there were two difficulties which 
 
 i Minutes of Conferences, 1773-1813, p. 51. 
 
 299 
 
300 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 arose in the way of proceeding in the manner they 
 had done heretofore. 
 
 " 1. It was very inconvenient for all the mem- 
 bers of the Conference to assemble together in one 
 place to transact their business. Hence, as we have 
 already seen, the bishops had appointed several separate 
 Conferences for the dispatch of their ordinary affairs. 
 
 " 2. But anything which was done in these separate 
 Conferences was not binding except simply the ordi- 
 nations and stationing the preachers unless sanctioned 
 by them all. And as this could rarely be expected, 
 constituted as human nature is, it was plainly seen 
 that there was danger of their falling to pieces, or of 
 having divers administrations. 
 
 " To provide against this evil, and to remedy the 
 inconvenience above mentioned, it was determined 
 this year, as the best thing that could be devised, to 
 have a Council." 1 
 
 The proposition for a body to be called " The 
 Council" was presented in 1789. Lee tells us that 
 "at these Conferences in 1789, a plan was laid 
 for the holding [of] a Council The. bishops said 
 they had made it a matter of prayer, and they be- 
 lieved the present plan was the best they could 
 think of." 2 
 
 Asbury doubtless was the inventor of this new 
 plan. In his journal of Friday, February 20, 1789, 
 he says : " I was closely employed in making my 
 
 1 Nathan Bangs, D. D., History of the Methodist Episcopal Church^ 
 New York, 1857, 10th Ed., Vol. I, p. 302. 
 
 2 Jesse Lee, History of the Methodists, 1810, p. 149. 
 
THE COUNCIL. 301 
 
 plan, and arranging the papers for Conference." 1 
 Very likely the plan for the Council was included in 
 the papers he was arranging. 
 
 Evidently the plan did not emanate from the 
 preachers. From Lee's statement it is plain that it was 
 an episcopal suggestion. Indeed when it was presented 
 it met with objection on the part of the ministers. 
 
 Lee relates that " after some opposition had been 
 made to the plan, and there had been some debating 
 about it, a majority of the preachers agreed to the 
 following plan, which was published in the Annual 
 Minutes." 2 Asbury, referring to the Conference in 
 North Carolina that year, writes : " We had weighty 
 matters for consideration before us." 3 Quite likely 
 this proposition for a Council was in his judgment one 
 of the weighty matters. 
 
 Lee states that the plan was published in the An- 
 nual Minutes ; but it does not appear in the reprint 
 published in 1813. 
 
 The plan for the Council was printed in the fol- 
 lowing form : 
 
 " Ques. Whereas the holding of General Conferences on 
 this extensive continent would be attended with a variety 
 of difficulties and many inconveniences to the work of God, 
 and whereas we judge it expedient that a Council should be 
 formed of chosen men out of the several districts as repre- 
 sentatives of the whole connection, to meet at stated times ; 
 in what manner is this Council to be formed, what shall be 
 its powers, and what farther regulations shall be made con- 
 cerning it? 
 
 * Asbury 's Journal, 1821, Vol II, p. 344. 
 2 Jesse Lee, History of the Methodists, 1810, p. 149. 
 Asbury 's Journal, 1821, Vol. II, p. 46. 
 
302 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 " Ans. 1. Onr bishops and presiding elders shall be the 
 members of this Council ; provided, that the members who form 
 the Council be never fewer than nine. And if any unavoid- 
 able circumstance prevent the attendance of a presiding elder 
 at the Council, he shall have authority to send another elder 
 out of his own district to represent him ; but the elder so sent 
 by the absenting presiding elder shall have no seat in the 
 Council without the approbation of the bishop, or bishops, and 
 presiding elders present. And if, after the above-mentioned 
 provisions are complied with, any unavoidable circumstance 
 or any contingencies reduce the number to less than nine, 
 the bishop shall immediately summon such elders as do not 
 preside, to complete the number. 
 
 " 2. These shall have authority to mature everything they 
 shall judge expedient. 
 
 " (1) To preserve the general union. (2) To render and pre- 
 serve the external form of worship similar in all our societies 
 through the continent. (3) To preserve the essentials of the 
 Methodist doctrines and discipline pure and uncorrupted. 
 (4) To correct all abuses and disorders ; and, lastly, they are 
 authorized to mature everything they may see necessary for 
 the good of the Church, and for the promoting and improv- 
 ing our colleges and plan of education. 
 
 " 3. Provided, nevertheless, that nothing shall be received 
 as the resolution of the Council, unless it be assented to unan- 
 imously by the Council; and nothing so assented- to by the 
 Council shall be binding in any district till it has been agreed 
 upon by a majority of the Conference which is held for that 
 district. 
 
 "4. The bishops shall have authority to summon the 
 Council to meet at such times and places as they shall judge 
 expedient. 
 
 " 5. The first Council shall be held at Cokesbury, on the 
 first day of next December." 
 
 Such was the provision, which it was promised 
 would accomplish great good. 
 
 The first meeting of the Council, though originally 
 ordered for Cokesbury, was held at Baltimore, in the 
 
THE COUNCIL. 303 
 
 month of December, 1789. Of that session, Asbury 
 makes the following mention in his journal: 
 
 "Thursday, December 4. Our Council was seated, consist- 
 ing of the following persons, viz. : Richard Ivey, from Georgia; 
 R. Ellis, South Carolina; E. Morris, North Carolina; Phil. 
 Bruce, North District of Virginia; James O'Kelly, South 
 District of Virginia; L. Green, Ohio; Nelson Reid, West- 
 ern Shore of Maryland; J. Everett, Eastern Shore; John 
 Dickens, Pennsylvania; J. O. Cromwell, Jersey; and Free- 
 born Garrettson, New York. All our business was done in 
 love and unanimity. The concerns of the college were well 
 attended to, as also the printing business. We formed some 
 resolutions relative to economy and union, and others con- 
 cerning the funds for the relief of our suffering preachers 
 on the frontiers. We rose on the eve of Wednesday follow- 
 ing. During our sitting we had preaching every night; some 
 few souls were stirred up, and others converted. The pru- 
 dence of some had stilled the noisy ardor of our young peo- 
 ple, and it was difficult to rekindle the fire. I collected about 
 28 for the poor, suffering preachers in the West. We spent 
 one day in speaking our own experiences, and giving an ac- 
 count of the progress and state of the work of God in our 
 several districts. A spirit of union pervaded the whole body, 
 producing blessed effects and fruits." l 
 
 Sherman states that "the Council met at Balti- 
 more, December 1, 1789, and framed a constitution, 
 giving to that body powers similar to those of the 
 General Conference." 2 As Sherman remarks, " The 
 plan appears to have been warmly cherished by As- 
 bury," yet it was exceedingly faulty. 
 
 Thus Bangs, adopting Lee's suggestion, points to 
 one provision in this plan " which went to nullify 
 their proceedings, and frustrate the very design for 
 
 i Asbnry's Journal, 1821, Vol. II, p. 59. 
 
 'David Sherman, D. D., History of the Discipline of the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church, New York, 3d Ed., 1890, p. 297. 
 
304 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 which the Council was constituted. It was in these 
 words: ' Nothing unanimously assented to by the 
 Council shall be binding in any district till it has 
 been agreed upon by a majority of the Conference 
 which is held for that district.' Such a regulation, 
 every one must perceive, tended to a dissolution of 
 the body by introducing dissensions ; for it could not 
 be expected that so many independent bodies, acting 
 separately, should entirely agree in many important 
 particulars." l 
 
 This device was a dangerous centralization of 
 power. The Council was composed of the bishops 
 and the presiding elders, who were appointed by the 
 bishops; so that the bishops really made the Council. 
 It was a partial abandonment of the principle of self- 
 government by the ministers in the Conferences, and 
 the placing of it in the hands of the bishops. It was 
 practically a change from Conference government, and 
 a retracing of steps toward personal government, 
 from which the Conference had broken away ; and 
 Asbury, the very man who had objected to the con- 
 tinued personal government of Wesley, had brought 
 about that which was practically a personal govern- 
 ment of his own. He may not have seen it in that 
 light, but that is what it amounted to ; for, as Sher- 
 man states, the plan placed "the legislative powers 
 in the hands of one man and his aids and ap- 
 pointees." 2 
 
 1 Nathan Bangs, History of the Methodist Episcopal Church, New 
 York, Vol. I, 10th Ed., 1857, p. 305. 
 
 a David Sherman, History of the Discipline, New York, 3d Ed., 
 18'JO, p. 297. 
 
THE: COUNCIL. 305 
 
 That the ministers in the Conferences consented 
 to try this scheme to make government easy, demon- 
 strates the great personal influence of Asbury; but 
 even wise men sometimes make mistakes. 
 
 The plan was a partial reversion from Conference 
 government to personal government. This was soon 
 recognized, and protests came in from every side. It 
 tended to undo what had been done. It was a retro- 
 grade movement, which soon stirred up suck a feeling 
 that it had to be abandoned. 
 
 Complaints began to arise against Asbury's power. 
 Only a few weeks after the adjournment of the first 
 Council, Asbury, while in Virginia, makes, under date 
 of January 12, 1790, the following entry: 
 
 "From Mabry's we came to Brunswick quarterly meet- 
 ing, where there was a considerable quickening and manifes- 
 tation of the Lord's power. We had a good meeting at 
 Roanoke Chapel ; I rejoice that the society had increased to 
 more than one hundred souls. 
 
 "I received a letter from the presiding elder of this dis- 
 trict, James O'Kelly. He makes heavy complaints of my 
 power, and bids me stop for one year, or he must use his in- 
 fluence against me. Power ! power ! there is not a vote giyen 
 in a Conference in which the presiding elder has not greatly 
 the advantage of me. All the influence I am to gain over a 
 company of young men in a district must be done in three 
 weeks; the greater part of them, perhaps, are seen by me 
 only at Conference, whilst the presiding elder has had them 
 with him all the year, and has the greatest opportunity of 
 gaining influence. This advantage may be abused let the 
 bishops look to it; but who has the power to lay an embargo 
 on me, and to make of none effect the decision of all the Con- 
 ferences of the Union?" 1 
 
 Abbury's Journal, 1821, Vol. II, p. 62. 
 
306 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 The Council became a topic for discussion in the 
 Conferences of 1790. Thus, under date of Monday, 
 February 15, 1790, Asbury, referring to the Confer- 
 ence at Charleston, South Carolina, makes the follow- 
 ing entry: "Our Conference began; our business was 
 conducted in great peace and love. The business of 
 the Council came before us, and it was determined 
 that the concerns of the college and the printing 
 should be left with the Council to act decisively upon ; 
 but that no new canons should be made, nor the old 
 altered, without the consent of the Conference, and 
 that whatever was done on this head should come in 
 the shape of advice only." 1 
 
 This indicates that some modification was made in 
 the methods of the Council. Referring to a Confer- 
 ence held in North Carolina in June 1790, Bishop 
 Asbury says, under date of June 1st: "Our business 
 was much matured, the critical concern of the Coun- 
 cil understood, and the plan, with its amendments, 
 adopted." 2 At the Conference in Virginia the proj- 
 ect did not move so smoothly. Under date of June 
 16* 1790, Bishop Asbury remarks : " Our Conference 
 began; all was peace until the Council was mentioned. 
 The young men appear to be entirely under the in- 
 fluence of the elders, and turned it out of doors. I 
 was weary and felt but little freedom to speak on the 
 subject. The business is to be explained to every 
 preacher ; and then it must be carried through the 
 Conferences twenty-four times ; i. e., through all the 
 Conferences for two years." 3 
 
 i Asbury's Journal, 1821, Vol. II, p. 65. * Id. p. 76. s Ibid. 
 
THE COUNCIL. 307 
 
 On the 26th of August, 1790, he writes: "To 
 conciliate the minds of our brethren in the South 
 District of Virginia, who are restless about the Coun- 
 cil, I wrote their leader informing him ' that I would 
 take my seat in Council as another member/ and in 
 that point, at least, waive the claims of episcopacy ; 
 yea, I would lie down and be trodden upon, rather 
 than knowingly injure one soul/' l 
 
 September 14th, he says: "Set out, and next day 
 reached Duck Creek Cross-roads, where we held our 
 Conference for the Eastern Shore of Maryland and 
 Delaware. One or two of our brethren felt the Vir- 
 ginia fire about the question of the Council, but all 
 things came into order, and the Council obtained." 2 
 
 On the 28th of the same month a Conference was 
 held at Burlington, New Jersey. Referring to it 
 Bishop Asbury remarks: "The session has been in 
 great peace ; harmony has prevailed, and the Council 
 has been unanimously adopted." 3 
 
 The second session of the Council was held De- 
 cember 1, 1790. Of this Bishop Asbury makes this 
 record : " The Council was seated in Philip Rogers's 
 chamber in Baltimore. After some explanation, we 
 all agreed that we had a right to manage the tem- 
 poral concerns of the Church and college decisively ; 
 and to recommend to the Conferences, for ratifica- 
 tion, whatever we judged might be advantageous to 
 the spiritual well-being of the whole body. For the 
 sake of union, we declined sending out any recom- 
 
 * Bishop Asbury '8 Journal, 1821, Vol. II, p. 82. Id., p. 83. 
 
 7d., p. 84. 
 
308 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 mandatory propositions : we had great peace and 
 union in all our laborers. What we have done the 
 Minutes will show." l 
 
 On Thursday, the 9th, he writes : " The Council 
 arose after advising a loan of 1,000 payable in two 
 years, for Cokesbury [College] ; and giving* direc- 
 tions for proper books to be printed." 2 
 
 This was the second and last session of the Coun- 
 cil. Another session was appointed for 1791, but the 
 dissatisfaction was so great that it never convened. 
 
 The Rev. Jesse Lee has preserved for us a very 
 full account of what was done at the two meetings of 
 the Council. As the Minutes do not appear to be 
 accessible, the portion preserved by him has great 
 value while his comments furnish very interesting 
 reading. 
 
 That we may have the whole matter as it ap- 
 peared to a contemporary we quote just as he gives it 
 in his history. He says : 
 
 " This plan for having a Council was entirely new, and 
 
 exceedingly dangerous. A majority of the preachers voted in 
 
 favor of it, but they were soon sensible that the plan would 
 
 not answer the purpose for which it was intended. The 
 
 Council was to be composed of the bishops and the presiding 
 
 elders. The presiding elders were appointed, changed, and 
 
 put out of office by the bishop, and just when he pleased ; of 
 
 course, the whole of the Council were to consist of the bishops 
 
 and a few other men of their own choice or appointing. 
 
 "One dangerous clause in the plan was this: 
 
 " Nothing unanimously assented to by the Council shall 
 
 be binding in any district till it has been agreed upon by a 
 
 majority of the Conference which is held for that district. If, 
 
 then, one district should agree to any important point, and 
 
 i Bishop Asbury s Journal, 1821, Vol. II, p. 88. * Id., p. 89. 
 
THE COUNCIL. 309 
 
 another district should reject it, the union between the 
 two districts would be broken, and in process of time our 
 United Socielvs would be thrown into disorder and confusion. 
 This I saw clearly when the plan was first proposed, and to 
 which I then objected. 
 
 " In the latter part of this year, the Council met according 
 to appointment, but not at the place where they were to meet. 
 The Annual Minutes said they should meet at Cokesbury. 
 But they met in Baltimore. 
 
 " I will here transcribe the whole of the Minutes of the 
 Council. 
 
 " ' The Proceedings of the Bishop and Presiding Elders of the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church, in Council assembled at Baltimore, on 
 the first day of December, 1789. 
 
 " ' The following members which formed the Council were 
 
 present : 
 
 " ' FRANCIS ASBURY, Bishop. 
 
 " ' Elders. 
 
 " ' Richard Ivey, Nelson Reid, 
 
 Reuben Ellis, Joseph Everitt, 
 
 Edward Morris, John Dickins, 
 
 James O'Kelly, James O. Cromwell, 
 
 Philip Bruce, Freeborn Garrettson.' 
 Lemuel Green, 
 
 " After having spent one hour in prayer to Almighty God 
 for his direction and blessing, they then unanimously agreed, 
 that a General Conference of the bishops, ministers, and 
 preachers of the Methodist Episcopal Church, on the Conti- 
 nent of America, would be attended with a variety of difficul- 
 ties, with great expense and loss of time, as well as many in- 
 conveniences to the work of God. And, as it is almost the 
 unanimous judgment of the ministers and preachers that it is 
 highly expedient there should be a general Council formed of 
 the most experienced elders in the connection, who, for the 
 future, being elected by ballot in every Conference, at the re- 
 quest of the bishop, shall be able to represent the several Con- 
 ferences and districts in the United States of America, they 
 therefore concluded that such a Council should be so ap- 
 pointed, and convened. 
 
310 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 " ' The Council then proceeded to form the following con- 
 stitution, to wit: 
 
 " ' The aforesaid Council, when assembled at the time and 
 place appointed by the bishop, shall have power to mature 
 and resolve on all things relative to the spiritual and temporal 
 interests of the Church, viz. : 
 
 "'1. To render the time and form of public worship as 
 similar as possible through all their congregations. 
 
 " ' 2. To preserve the general union of the ministers, 
 preachers, and people in the Methodist doctrine and dis- 
 cipline. 
 
 " * 3. To direct and manage all the printing which may be 
 done, from time to time, for the use and benefit of the Meth- 
 odist Church in America. 
 
 "'4. To conduct the plan of education, and manage all 
 matters which may, from time to time, pertain to any college 
 or houses built, or about to be built, as the property of the 
 Methodist connection. 
 
 " ' 5. To remove, or receive and appoint the salary of any 
 tutors, from time to time, employed in any seminary of learn- 
 ing belonging to the said Connection. 
 
 " ' 6. In the intervals of the Council, the bishop shall have 
 power to act in all contingent occurrences relative to the print- 
 ing business, or the education and economy of the college. 
 
 " ' 7. Nine members, and no less, shall be competent to 
 form a Council, which may proceed to business. 
 
 " '8. No resolution shall be formed in such a Council with- 
 out the consent of the bishop and two-thirds of the members 
 present.' 
 
 f " After the Council had finished the constitution as above, 
 they then proceeded, with perfect unanimity, to form the 
 following resolutions: 
 
 " ' 1. Every resolution of the first Council shall be put to 
 vote in each Conference, and shall not be adopted unless it 
 obtains a majority of the different Conferences. But every 
 resolution which is received by a majority of the several Con- 
 ferences shall be received by every member of each Conference. 
 
 " ' 2. Public worship shall commence at 10 o'clock on the 
 Lord's-day, in all places where we have societies and regular 
 preaching, if it be practicable ; and if it be not, at 11 o'clock. 
 
THE COUNCIL. 311 
 
 "'3. The exercise of public worship on the Lord's day 
 shall be singing, prayer, and reading the Holy Scriptures, 
 with exhortation or reading a sermon, in the absence of a 
 preacher ; and the officiating person shall be appointed by the 
 elder, deacon, or traveling preacher, for the time being. 
 
 " '4. For the future no more houses shall be built for public 
 worship without the consent and direction of the Conference 
 and presiding elder of the district, unless a house should be 
 built under the direction of the presiding elder and the travel- 
 ing preachers in the circuit, and finished without the least 
 debt remaining on it. 
 
 '"5. It is required that all the parents and guardians of 
 independent scholars in Cokesbury College may punctually 
 pay for the students' tuition and board, on or before the first 
 day of December, in every year, as none will be continued 
 there more than one year on credit, but will be immediately 
 sent home in case of non-payment. And for the future, at 
 least one-fourth of the price of twelve months' board and 
 tuition must be sent with every scholar who comes from the 
 adjacent States, and half the said price with every scholar who 
 comes from any distant. State. 
 
 " ' 6. Every minister, preacher, and private member shall 
 be permitted, and is hereby earnestly requested, to devise 
 some means, and either bring or send his proposals to the 
 next Council, for the purpose of laying some scheme for re- 
 lieving our dear brethren who labor in the extremities of the 
 work, and do not receive more than six, eight, ten, twelve, or 
 fifteen pounds per annum. 
 
 " * 7. Every deacon shall be three years in a state of pro- 
 bation before he can be elected to the eldership. 
 
 " ' 8. Considering the weight of the Connection, the concerns 
 of the college, and the printing business, it is resolved, that an- 
 other Council shall be convened at Baltimore on the first day 
 of December, 1790.' 
 
 " I have thought proper to insert the Minutes of the first 
 Council at full length, that the plan, and the whole business 
 thereof, may be understood in future ; and that the reason may 
 be known why it was opposed, and why it was so soon given 
 up and rejected, both by the Methodist preachers and 
 people. 
 
312 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 " When the Council was first proposed, the preachers in 
 each district were to have the power to reject or retain the 
 measures which had been adopted by the Council. But when 
 the proceedings of the Council came out, they had changed 
 the plan, and determined that if a majority of the preachers 
 in the different districts should approve of the proceedings of 
 the Council, it should then be binding on every preacher in 
 each district. 
 
 " The number of Conferences were increased, so that but 
 a small number of preachers could collect at one place. There 
 were fourteen Conferences appointed for the next year. 
 
 " In the latter part of the year 1790, the second and last 
 Council met, and their Minutes began as follows : 
 
 " ' Minutes, taken at a Council of the Bishop and Delegated 
 Elders of the Methodist Episcopal Church, held at Baltimore, in 
 the State of Maryland, December 1, 1790. 
 
 "' Q. What members are present? 
 
 " ' A. Francis Asbury, bishop ; Freeborn Garrettson, Francis 
 Poythress, Nelson Reid, John Dickins, Philip Bruce, Isaac Smith, 
 Thomas Bowen, James 0. Cromwell, Joseph Everitt, and Charles 
 Conn a way. l 
 
 " ' Q. What power do this the Council consider themselves 
 invested with by their electors ? 
 
 " ' A. First they unanimously consider themselves invested 
 with full power to act decisively in all temporal matters. And 
 secondly, to recommend to the several Conferences any new 
 canons, or alterations to be made in any old ones. 
 
 "'Q. What can be done to promote the book-business? 
 
 " ' Q. Who are appointed as traveling book stewards by 
 the order of the Council ? 
 
 " * Q. How shall such stewards be appointed for the 
 future ? 
 
 " ' Q. What can be done to procure religious experiences 
 and letters for the Arminian Magazine? 
 
 " ' Q. Who shall form such a committee ; that is, to ex- 
 amine letters and written experiences for the Magazine ? 
 
 " ' Q. What books shall be published in the course of the 
 two following years ? 
 
 The names in Hal irg were members of the first Council. 
 
THK COUNCIL,. 313 
 
 " ' Q. Shall we publish Mr. Wesley's four volumes of ser- 
 mons before the sitting of the next Council? 
 
 " ' Q. What shall be done to support the credit and finish 
 the building of Cokesbury College ? 
 
 " ' Q. Can anything more be done for Cokesbury College f 
 
 " ' Q. What is the expense of the charity boys for the 
 present year in Cokesbury College f 
 
 " ' Q. Shall the bishop have power to draw any money out 
 of the book profits, for the partial supply of any Church or 
 preacher that may be in pressing need? 
 
 "' A. By the recommendation of the elder of a district, the 
 bishop may draw as far as three pounds per month, but no 
 farther. 
 
 " ' Q. Who are the present teachers in Cokesbury College ? 
 
 " ' A. Jacob Hall, A. M., Patrick M'Closkey, and Charles Tite. 
 
 "'Q. Can anything be done to prevent the students of 
 Cokesbury College from trafficking or exchanging their property 
 with each other ? 
 
 " ' Q. As many of our Churches are unfinished and in 
 debt, and our grave-yards unfenced, what can be done for 
 their relief ? 
 
 " * Q. As the presiding elders have only a partial supply of 
 quarterly meetings, to whom shall they present their annual 
 accounts ? 
 
 " ' Q. As the bishop is not supplied from the circuits, to 
 whom shall he render his account? 
 
 " ' A. To the Council. 
 
 " ' Q. What shall be done, if an opening should be made, 
 to settle a teacher or preacher among any of the Indian 
 Nations f 
 
 " ' Q. What advice shall we give our brethren who desire 
 to erect district schools ? 
 
 " ' Q. What can be done toward the reliff of our preachers, 
 who can not obtain the salaries allowed by our canons ? 
 
 " ' Q. Who shall be appointed to superintend the economy 
 of the college in the recess of the Council and the absence of 
 the bishop ? 
 
 " 'A. Nelson Reid, John Dickins, and Joseph Everitt. 
 
 " l Q. Who shall be appointed as factors to supply the col- 
 lege with whatever necessaries may be wanted ? 
 
 21 
 
314 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 " 'A. William Wood and John Brevitt. 
 
 " 1 Q. Who shall be appointed to inspect the factors' bills 
 and make their payments ? 
 
 " 'A. Philip Rogers, Jesse Hollingsworth, Samuel Owings, and 
 Emanuel Kent. 
 
 " ' Q. As we think it primitive, prudent, and decent, that 
 men and women should sit apart in public congregations, 
 what can be done to promote it amongst our people ? 
 
 " ' Q. What money is now in hand belonging to the 
 preachers' fund? 
 
 " ' A. One hundred and sixty -eight 'pounds, one shilling, 
 and four pence. 
 
 " ' Q. What can be done to secure money, that may be 
 collected for this purpose, in future 1 
 
 "' Q. How shall money be drawn from time to time out 
 of the fund for the relief of distressed preachers ? 
 
 " * Q. As the bishop complains that some prea'chers 
 look to him for a supply of their deficiencies, what is the 
 judgment of the Council in this case? 
 
 " * Q. As some of the members of Council complain of 
 long and expensive journeys, what can be done for their as- 
 sistance in future ? 
 
 " ' Q. When and where shall the next Council be held ? 
 
 " ' A. At Cokesbury College or Baltimore, on the 1st day of 
 December, 1792.' 
 
 " There were thirty-one questions in these Minutes, which I 
 have stated in the same form and order in which they stood in 
 the Minutes of the Council. I have also given a few of the an- 
 swers ; but, the answers being of little or no consequence to 
 the people in general, I have omitted the greater part of 
 them ; and only inserted such as might perhaps be satisfac- 
 tory to the reader. I have thought proper to publish all the 
 questions, that it may be seen in future in what manner the 
 Council proceeded. 
 
 "This Council determined to have another meeting two 
 years from that time ; but their proceedings gave such dissatis- 
 faction to our Connection in general, and to some of the trav- 
 eling preachers in particular, that they were forced to aban- 
 don the plan ; and there has never since been a meeting of 
 the kind. 
 
THE COUNCIL. 315 
 
 "When the first Council met, I wrote them a letter in 
 which I stated my objections to their plan, and pointed out 
 the difficulties that it would produce, and contended for a 
 General Conference; which plan was disapproved of by all 
 the Council. 
 
 " The most violent opposer of the Council among the 
 traveling preachers was at first one of that body; namely, 
 James O'Kelly. While he was at the first Council he appeared 
 to be united to the plan and to the members ; but after he re- 
 turned to Virginia, he exclaimed bitterly against the proceedings 
 and against what he himself had done in the business. He re- 
 fused to have anything at all to do with the second Council. 
 
 " The supposition respecting this sudden change in the old 
 man, and his hasty conduct in condemning what he had just 
 before sanctioned, was, that he went to the first Council 
 with some expectation of being promoted in the Church; 
 but, finding himself disappointed, he returned home greatly 
 mortified. 
 
 " We have sufficient reason to believe that the establish- 
 ment of the Council was very injurious to the Methodist Con- 
 nection. The plan produced such difficulties in the minds of 
 the preachers and the people, and brought on such opposition, 
 that it was hard to reconcile them one to another. Nothing 
 would or could give satisfaction to the preachers but the call- 
 ing together all the traveling preachers in a General Confer- 
 ence; to which, after some time, the bishop consented." 1 
 
 Commenting on the adoption of the Council idea, 
 Dr. Bangs observes: 
 
 "Though the preachers generally voted for the plan 
 when it was submitted to them by the bishops, dissatisfaction 
 soon sprang up in their minds in reference to it, on account of 
 its being dangerous, as they thought, to their liberties. It 
 was contended that as the Council was composed of the 
 bishops and presiding elders, and as the latter were appointed 
 by the bishops and changed at their pleasure, it was vir- 
 tually concentrating all the authority of the Church in the 
 hands of the bishops, and thus creating an aristocracy of 
 
 i Jesse Lee, History of the Methodists, 1810, pp. 150-150. 
 
316 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 power incompatible with the rights and privileges of the en- 
 tire body." ! 
 
 Thomas Ware, who was one of the active preach- 
 ers of that day, and was opposed to the Council 
 from the beginning, tells us that " The loss of time 
 in attending the General Conference was great; to 
 which, if we add the expense and fatigue, we may 
 see the motives that influenced the bishops to pro- 
 pose a Council. That these were weighty reasons, 
 none could deny; and an unwillingness to oppose 
 Bishop Asbury led a majority of the preachers to 
 yield so far as to permit the experiment to be made. 
 A minority, however, opposed it from the first ; and 
 I happened to be one of that number. I had ven- 
 tured to say, if there must be a Council to consist of 
 bishops and presiding elders, the latter should be 
 chosen, not by the bishops, but by the Conferences, 
 and everything done in Council should be by a sim- 
 ple majority. Much as I respected our superintend- 
 ents, for one, I could not consent to give them a 
 negative on all future proceedings. I was not dis- 
 posed to charge the projectors of the plan with any 
 other than the purest motives. Others, however, I 
 was persuaded would do so. And, on the whole, it 
 was better, in my opinion, to abandon the Council 
 altogether. He [Bishop Asbury] then gave me some 
 severe rebukes; but, nevertheless, appointed me a 
 presiding elder. The experiment of a Council was 
 
 1 Nathan Bangs, D. D., History of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
 :> T . Y., 1857, 10th Ed., Vol. I, pp. 304, 305. 
 
THE COUNCIL. 317 
 
 made ; but after its second meeting, it was abandoned 
 forever." l 
 
 In two years the experiment demonstrated its un- 
 acceptability, and its promoters were glad to let it 
 drop out of sight. As Sherman observes : " The 
 Council had become so generally odious to preachers 
 and people that Asbury himself requested that it 
 might be named no more. Highly and justly as they 
 esteemed Asbury, they were not prepared to make 
 him a pope." 2 
 
 Thus the Council expired and was buried ; but in 
 history it lives to illustrate the fact that in all gov- 
 ernments two forces are in action one toward a cen- 
 tralization of power, and another toward a diffusion 
 of power. The first tends to despotism ; the latter, to 
 anarchy. In democracies there is a tendency to con- 
 centration ; in despotisms there is a tendency to disso- 
 lution. Safety is in the mean between the extremes. 
 
 In Church as well as in State there must be eter- 
 nal vigilance that liberty may be preserved. What 
 has been may be. Human nature in ecclesiastical af- 
 fairs is the same as in State affairs, and needs checks 
 and balances in the one as in the other; and too 
 much must not be taken for granted in the one, any 
 more than in the other. The Council was a move 
 toward centralization, but the Church asserted itself in 
 time to prevent its becoming a permanent part of the 
 economy of the Methodist Episcopal Church. Gov- 
 ernment by the Conference once more asserted itself. 
 
 * Autobiography of Rev. Thomas Ware, New York, 1840, pp. 181, 182. 
 2 David Sherman, D. D., History of Discipline, Ed. of 1890, Note, 
 p. 297. 
 
CHAPTER XI. 
 
 THE QUADRENNIAL GENERAL CONFERENCE. 
 
 THE Council experiment had utterly failed, and 
 yet the need of some arrangement by which all 
 the preacher's could have a voice and a vote in making 
 the laws in a more convenient manner than passing 
 the measure from Conference to Conference, still 
 remained. 
 
 To have all the preachers come together in one 
 place, for the purpose of deliberating and deciding 
 upon matters relating to the government, had many 
 advantages over the system of submitting every enact- 
 ment to each Annual Conference. Thus it permitted 
 all to hear the same discussion, and, after hearing the 
 arguments pro and con, the members were more likely 
 to reach a satisfactory conclusion than when separated 
 in a large number of distinct bodies. In the latter 
 case, each Conference would hear only its own 
 speakers, and so would not have the benefit of the 
 concentrated wisdom of the whole Church. The 
 General Conference idea was the only one that prom- 
 ised relief. 
 
 Bishop Asbury was the promoter of the Council 
 plan, to which Bishop Coke does not appear to have 
 given much sympathy. At least, after it had been 
 tested and had caused much dissatisfaction, he seems 
 to have strongly opposed the arrangement. 
 318 
 
QUADRENNIAL GENERAL CONFERENCE. 319 
 
 On the 23d of February, 1791, Bishop Coke, who 
 had been shipwrecked off Edisto, came to Charles- 
 ton, South Carolina. Bishop Asbury met him at this 
 time, and it is evident that Bishop Coke expressed 
 himself very vigorously against a continuance of the 
 Council, and in favor of a general conference of the 
 preachers. 
 
 Bishop Asbury, under this day, makes this entry 
 in his journal: "I found the Doctor's sentiments 
 with regard to the Council quite changed. James 
 O'Kelly's letters had reached London. I felt per- 1 
 fectly calm, and acceded to a general conference for 
 the sake of peace." 1 
 
 It will thus be seen that to Bishop Coke is due 
 the credit of reversing the tendency to centralize the 
 government in one or a few, of restoring the suprem- 
 acy of the body of the preachers, and also of estab- 
 lishing regular General Conferences. 
 
 During this year, owing to the wide-spread dis- 
 satisfaction which existed among the preachers of the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church on account of matters 
 connected with the Council and tendencies to which 
 we have alluded, Bishop Coke began to fear that di- 
 visions would take place. Perceiving what he be- 
 lieved was an imminent danger, and desiring to pre- 
 vent the threatened disintegration of American 
 Methodism, Bishop Coke, writing from Richmond, 
 on the 24th of April, 1791, addressed a confidential 
 letter to Bishop White, of the Protestant Episcopal 
 
 Bishop Asbury 's Journal, 1821, Vol. II, p. 95. 
 
320 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 Church, suggesting "a reunion" between the two 
 communions." 1 
 
 For this act Bishop Coke has been severely criti- 
 cised; but when the circumstances are considered, 
 there are grounds for a charitable judgment, and es- 
 pecially as a few years later he practically admitted 
 that he had made a mistake. 2 
 
 In a communication to the General Conference of 
 1808, Bishop Coke alludes to animadversions upon 
 that noted letter, and says: 
 
 "There are very few of you who can possibly recollect 
 anything of what I am next going to add. Many of you were 
 then only little children. We had at that time no regular 
 General Conferences. One only had been held, in the year 
 1784. I had indeed, with great labor and fatigue, a few 
 months before I wrote this letter to Bishop White, prevailed 
 on James O'Kelly, and the thirty-six traveling preachers who 
 had withdrawn with him from all connection with Bishop 
 Asbury, to submit to the decision of a General Conference. 
 This Conference was to be held in about a year and a half 
 after my departure from the States. And at this Conference, 
 held I think the latter end of 1792, I proposed and obtained 
 that great blessing to the American Connection a perma- 
 nency for General Conferences, which were to be held at 
 stated times. Previously to the holding of this Conference 
 (except the general one held in 1784), there were only small 
 district meetings, excepting the Council, which was held at 
 Cokesbury College, either in 1791 or 1792. Except the union 
 which most justly subsisted between Bishop Asbury on the 
 one hand and the preachers and people on the other, the 
 society as such, taken as an aggregate, was almost like a rope 
 of sand. I longed to see matters on^ a footing likely to be 
 permanent. Bishop Asbury did the same; and it was that 
 
 J See Bishop Coke's Letter in Bangs's History of the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church, New York, 1853, 3d Ed., Vol. II, pp. 200-204. 
 2 Id., p. 210. 
 
QUADRENNIAL GENERAL CONFERENCE. 321 
 
 view of things, I doubt not, which led Bishop Asbury, the 
 year before, to call and endeavor to establish a regular Coun- 
 cil, who were to meet him annually at Cokesbury. For this 
 point I differed in sentiment from my venerable brother. 
 But I saw the danger of our situation, though I well knew 
 that God was sufficient for all things. I did verily believe 
 then that, under God, the Connection would be more likely 
 to be saved from convulsions by a union with the old Episco- 
 pal Church than any other way not by dereliction of ordina- 
 tion, sacraments, and the Methodist Discipline, but by a junc- 
 tion on proper terms." l 
 
 This revealed three things : First, that Bishop 
 Coke wrote the letter to Bishop White because he 
 believed the Methodist Episcopal Church was in 
 danger through internal dissensions ; second, that he 
 neither originated nor approved the Council scheme ; 
 and third, that he suggested and secured the estab- 
 lishment of stated General Conferences. 
 
 Bishop Coke's impulses placed him on the side of 
 liberal government, and in numerous instances he 
 advocated the rights of the body of the preachers. In 
 this instance his influence was thrown in favor of a 
 General Conference, as a means of checking disorgan- 
 izing tendencies, and as a more equitable system of 
 government. 
 
 When Bishop Coke returned to the United 
 States early in 1791, he appears at once to have sug- 
 gested the calling of a General Conference, and, as 
 already stated, Bishop Asbury acceded "for the sake 
 of peace." The result was that a General Confer- 
 ence of all the preachers was called for 1792. Prob- 
 
 !See Letter in Bangs's History of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
 New York, 1853, 3d Ed., Vol. II, pp. 206-210. 
 
322 GOVERNING CONFERKNCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 ably the matter was submitted by the bishops to 
 all the Conferences, and, as Bangs remarks, " This 
 was, it seems, agreed upon by the several Annual 
 Conferences which had been held this year." l 
 
 The records of " the first regular General Confer- 
 ence," as Lee terms it} have not been preserved in 
 separate form, but what was done was incorporated 
 in the Discipline of 1792, and appears in the works 
 of contemporaneous writers, and particularly in Lee's 
 History. Lee informs us that, 
 
 "On the first day of November, 1792, the first regular 
 General Conference began in Baltimore. Our preachers who 
 had been received into full connection came together from 1 all 
 parts of the United States where we had any circuits formed, 
 with an expectation that something of great importance 
 would take place in the Connection in consequence of that 
 Conference. The preachers generally thought that in all 
 probability there would never be another Conference of that 
 kind, at which all the preachers in connection might attend. 
 The work was spreading through all the United States and the 
 different Territories, and was likely to increase more and more, 
 so that it was generally thought that this Conference would 
 adopt some permanent regulations which would prevent the 
 preachers in future from coming together in a General Con- 
 ference. This persuasion brought out more of the preachers 
 than otherwise would have attended. 
 
 " By this time the plan of the former Council had become 
 exceedingly disagreeable to the greater part of our brethren, 
 both preachers and people ; and it was expected that some of 
 the preachers would try, in that Conference, to revive and es- 
 tablish it. But we were agreeably disappointed; for soon 
 after we met together, the bishops and the preachers in general 
 showed a disposition to drop the Council and all things be- 
 longing thereunto ; and the bishop requested that the name 
 
 i Nathan Bangs, History of the Methodist Episcopal Church, N. Y., 
 1857, 10th Ed., Vol. I, p. 343. 
 
QUADRENNIAL GENERAL CONFERENCE. 323 
 
 of the Council might not be mentioned in the Conference 
 again. No one attempted to bring forward that business 
 afterwards. 
 
 " The Conference proceeded, in the first place, to form 
 some rules and regulations for conducting the business which 
 lay before them. To that end there was a committee ap- 
 pointed of the oldest preachers and a few chosen from those 
 that were younger in the work. This committee was to con- 
 sider matters among themselves, and when a majority of them 
 agreed to make any alteration in our form of Discipline, they 
 were to make report to the Conference. One of the rules for 
 the regulation of the Conference was this: 'It shall take two- 
 thirds of all the members, of the Conference to make a new 
 rule, or abolish an old one ; but a majority may alter or amend 
 any rule.' 
 
 "The committee was afterwards increased by adding 
 more preachers to it ; but, after all, it was found to be of no 
 real use ; for if a few of the committee were opposed to any- 
 thing that was adopted by a majority of their brethren, when 
 the business was brought before the whole of the Conference, 
 those that were dissatisfied before would take an active part 
 in the debates, and all the arguments that had been brought 
 forward in the committee would be taken up again, which 
 did not answer the end intended. It had been thought that 
 a committee would arrange matters so as to expedite the 
 business ; but after trying it, we found that it had the con- 
 trary effect. The committee was then given up, and any 
 preacher was at liberty to bring forward any motion ; and 
 the Conference proceeded to establish or reject it, according to 
 the above regulation, either by the voice of a majority or two- 
 thirds, as the case might require." 1 
 
 " One rule for our debates was, * That each person, if he 
 choose, shall have liberty to speak three times on each 
 motion.'" 2 
 
 " At that General Conference we revised the form of Dis- 
 cipline, and. made several alterations. The proceedings of 
 that Conference were not published in separate Minutes, but 
 
 i Jesse Lee, History of Methodists, Baltimore, 1810, pp. 176-178. 
 /d., p. 179. 
 
324 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 the alterations were entered at their proper places, and pub- 
 lished in the next edition of the form of Discipline, which 
 was the eighth edition." 
 
 The title-page of that edition was as follows: 
 "The Doqtrine and Discipline of the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church in America, revised and approved 
 at the General Conference held at Baltimore, in the 
 State of Maryland, in November, 1792, in which 
 Thomas Coke and Francis Asbury presided." 
 
 In the Bishop's Address to the Members of the 
 Methodist Societies in the United States they say : 
 
 "We have made some little alteration in the present 
 edition, yet such as affects not in any degree the essentials of 
 our doctrine and Discipline. We think ourselves obliged fre- 
 quently to view and review the whole order of our Church, 
 always aiming at perfection. 
 
 " We determined at this Conference to have another 
 General Conference at the end of four years, to be held in 
 Baltimore on the first of November, 1796. We also agreed 
 that all the traveling preachers who should be in full con- 
 nection at the time of holding the next General Conference 
 should be entitled to a seat. 
 
 " It was likewise determined that the districts should be 
 formed according to the judgment of the bishops ; yet so as not 
 to include more than twelve, nor less than three circuits in a 
 district. Moreover it was also said : ' The bishop shall ap- 
 point the time of holding the district Conferences.' l 
 
 " We had also this : ' N. B. In case there be no bishop 
 to travel through the districts and exercise the episcopal office 
 on the account of death, the districts shall be regulated in 
 every respect by the district Conferences and the presiding 
 elders, till the ensuing General Conference (ordination only 
 excepted).' " 2 
 
 " The fifth section had respect to the presiding elders. 
 Such an order of elders had never been regularly established 
 
 1 Jesse Lee, History of the Methodists, Baltimore, 1810, pp. 180-181. 
 
 2 Id., p. 182. 
 
QUADRENNIAL GENERAL CONFERENCE. 325 
 
 before. They had been appointed by the bishop for several 
 years; but it was a doubt in the minds of the preachers 
 whether such power belonged to him. The General Confer- 
 ence now determined " that there should be presiding elders, 
 and that they should be chosen, stationed, and changed by the 
 bishop. However, a new rule was formed respecting them, as 
 follows: ' The bishop shall not allow an elder to preside in the 
 same district more than four years successively.' " l 
 
 This General Conference made many changes in 
 the Discipline. As Lee remarks : " It was eight years 
 from the Christmas Conference, where we became a 
 regular Church, to this General Conference. In 
 which time our form of Discipline had been changed 
 and altered in so many particulars, and the business 
 of the Council had thrown the Connection into such 
 confusion that we thought proper at this Conference 
 to take under consideration the greater part of the 
 form of Discipline, and either abolish, establish, or 
 change the rules, so that we might all approve of, or 
 be reconciled to, f whatever might be found in the Dis- 
 cipline." : 
 
 It was at the General Conference of 1792 that the 
 Rev. James O'Kelly proposed his historic amend- 
 ment to the Discipline, as follows : 
 
 " After the bishop appoints the preachers at Con- 
 ference to their several circuits, if any one think him- 
 self injured by the appointment, he shall have liberty 
 to appeal to the Conference and -state his objections; 
 and if the Conference approve his objections, the 
 bishop shall appoint him to another circuit." 3 
 
 1 Jesse Lee, History of the Methodists, Baltimore, 1810, p. 183. 
 
 2 Id., pp. 192-193. 3 ia. } p. 178. 
 
326 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 Lee states that " this motion brought on a long 
 debate; the arguments for and against the proposal 
 were weighty and handled in a masterly manner;" but 
 " when the vote was taken, the motion was lost by a 
 large majority." 
 
 This matter caused great anxiety in the mind of 
 Bishop Asbury, who wrote : 
 
 " I felt awful at the General Conference which 
 began November 1, 1792. At my desire they ap- 
 pointed a moderator and preparatory committee to 
 keep order and bring forward the business with 
 regularity. We had heavy debates on the first, second, 
 and third sections of our form of Discipline. My 
 power to station the preachers without an appeal was 
 much debated, but finally carried by a very large 
 majority. Perhaps a new bishop, new Conference, 
 and new laws would have better pleased some. I 
 have been much grieved for others, and distressed 
 with the burthen I bear and must hereafter bear. . . . 
 "Some individuals among the preachers having 
 their jealousies about my influence in the Conference, 
 I gave the matter wholly up to them, and to Dr. 
 Coke, who presided. Meantime I sent them the fol- 
 lowing letter: 
 
 " ' MY DEAR BRETHREN, Let my absence give you no pain. 
 Dr. Coke presides. I am happily excused from assisting to 
 make laws by which myself am to be governed. I have only 
 to obey and execute. I am happy in the consideration that I 
 never stationed a preacher through enmity or as a punish- 
 ment. I have acted for the glory of God, the good of the 
 people, and to promote the usefulness of the preachers. Are 
 you sure that, if you please yourselves, the people will be 
 
QUADRENNIAL GENERAL CONFERENCE. 327 
 
 as fully satisfied ? They often say, " Let us have such a 
 preacher;" and sometimes, " We will not have such a preacher; 
 we will sooner pay him to stay at home." Perhaps I must 
 say, "His appeal forced him upon you." I am one, ye are 
 many. I - am as willing to serve you as ever. I want not to 
 sit in any man's way. I scorn to solicit votes. I am a very 
 trembling, poor creature to hear praise or dispraise. Speak 
 your minds freely, but remember, you are only making laws 
 for the present time ; it may be, that as in some other things, 
 so in this, a future day may give you further light. 
 " * I am yours, etc., 
 
 " ' FRANCIS ASBUEY.' " l 
 
 The result was, that Mr. O'Kelly withdrew, and 
 formed a body called the " Republican Methodists." 
 Subsequently the name was changed to " The Chris- 
 tian Church ;" but that body soon ceased to exist. 
 
 It is not our province to discuss this matter, 
 though it has much historic interest. 2 We must con- 
 tent ourselves at this time with the results of this 
 General Conference as bearing upon the development 
 of Conference government. 
 
 The effect in general was to strengthen the power 
 of the body of the ministry. Among other things 
 the Conference placed the power of electing bishops 
 in the General Conference, and made the bishops 
 amenable to the General Conference, which body 
 would have power to expel a bishop for improper 
 conduct. 
 
 In answer to the question, " Who shall compose 
 the General Conference?" it was decided that "all 
 the traveling preachers who shall be in full connec- 
 
 i Bishop Asbury's Journal, 1821, Vol. II, pp. 146, 147. 
 a See Lee's History of the Methodists, pp. 178-180 ; 202-206. 
 
328 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 tion at the time of holding the Conference ;" and thus 
 it stood until 1800, when the General Conference of 
 that year amended the answer so that it read : " All the 
 preachers who have traveled four years, and are in 
 full connection at the time of holding the Conference." 
 
 In 1804 it was changed to read: " All the preach- 
 ers who shall have traveled four years from the time 
 they were received on trial by an Annual Conference, 
 and are in full connection at the time of holding 
 the Conference." l 
 
 Thus it will be seen that the limitations increased 
 with the years. At first every traveling preacher was 
 a member of the General Conference if he was a full 
 member of an Annual Conference at the time the 
 General Conference* convened. In eight years there 
 was another requirement; namely, he must not only 
 be in full connection but he must also have traveled 
 as an itinerant preacher four years; and four years 
 after that it was made a requisite that he had traveled 
 four years from the time he was received on probation in 
 an Annual Conference. According to the first arrange- 
 ment he might have been a member after itinerating only 
 two years, for in that time one might be received into 
 full membership in the Annual Conference; under the 
 second he must have traveled four years, but two of 
 these might have been prior to his being received " on 
 trial ;" while under the third arrangement the four 
 years were to count from the time he was received on 
 probation, so that though he might have served as 
 a supply or helper a number of years before that, 
 
 1 See Discipline for the above years. 
 
QUADRENNIAL GENERAL CONFERENCE. 329 
 
 the years prior to admission would not count in his 
 favor. Prior to the General Conference of 1792 fhe 
 members in the Annual Conferences could make laws 
 for the whole Church, though they met separately in 
 distinct Conferences, the method being, as we have 
 already seen, to propose the measure in the first Con- 
 ference of the year, and then to present it to the 
 other Conferences as they convened ; and if the 
 measure obtained a majority in each Conference, it 
 became a law. It was possible under the former ar- 
 rangement, without an assembling of all the minis- 
 ters in one place, to elect a bishop; and so it hap- 
 pens that in 1788 a new question was* added to the 
 list of questions for a Conference session; namely, 
 " Is there any other business to be done in the 
 Conference ?" and the answer was : " The electing 
 and ordaining of bishops, elders, and deacons." ] 
 
 By the act of the preachers assembled in the 
 General Conference of 1792, the power to elect 
 officers for the Church was taken from the yearly 
 Conferences, and vested in the Quadrennial General 
 Conference. Thus it was specified that bishops were 
 to be elected by, and be amenable to, the General 
 Conference. 2 In the interim a committee of minis- 
 ters could suspend a bishop for a matter reflecting on 
 his moral character; but only the General Con- 
 ference could expel him. A similar change was 
 made in regard to legislative enactments. By the de- 
 cision of the General Conference of 1792 the law- 
 making power was taken from the several Annual 
 
 J Discipline for 1788. Id. , 1 792. 
 22 
 
330 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 Conferences sitting separately, and all legislative 
 power was vested in the General Conference, which 
 was to meet once in four years; and from that time 
 new laws, or changes in the old laws, could be made 
 only once in four years, and then only by the min- 
 isters eligible to membership in the General Confer- 
 ence, and in General Conference assembled. 
 
 Thus directly and by implication the action of this 
 assembly of all the ministers representing the then 
 governing power of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
 the supreme legislative, judicial, and executive power 
 of the Church was now vested in the General Confer- 
 ence, which was to meet once in four years. 
 
 To this Quadrennial General Conference, consti- 
 tuted as before stated, bishops and ordained ministers, 
 preachers and people, Conferences and Churches, were 
 to be subject. Its authority was to touch the highest 
 official in the general Church, as well as the humblest 
 member in the local Church. It was to make the 
 laws, to interpret the laws, and, directly or indirectly, 
 to execute the laws. It represented the Church it 
 was the Church for all these purposes. 
 
 It is true the ordinary lay members of the Church 
 were not present in the General Conference of 1792, 
 either in person or by delegate directly elected by 
 themselves; yet, nevertheless, it represented the gov- 
 erning power of the Church. 
 
 The people conceded the governing power to the 
 preachers, and from the beginning acquiesced in what 
 they decided, just as they did when the Church was 
 organized in 1784. In a sense, the ministry made 
 
QUADRENNIAL GENERAL, CONFERENCE. 331 
 
 the Church by their labors; and the people, who had 
 been educated to reverence the clergy as shepherds 
 appointed by the Great Shepherd of all to oversee 
 the flock of Christ, found no difficulty in committing 
 to the ministry the government of the general 
 Church. 
 
 Lee informs us that " the proceedings of this 
 General Conference gave great satisfaction to our 
 preachers and people, and the divisive spirit which 
 had been prevailing in different parts of our Con- 
 nection was considerably checked. And nothing 
 that was done gave more satisfaction than the plan 
 that was laid for having another General Conference 
 at the expiration of four years from that time, to 
 which all the preachers in full connection were at 
 liberty to come." l 
 
 The Quadrennial General Conference had now 
 become a permanent institution. The next one met in 
 Baltimore, October 20, 1796, though the General Con- 
 ference of 1792 directed that it should be held " on the 
 first day of November, in the year 1796, in the town 
 of Baltimore." 2 The second regular General Con- 
 ference, just before its adjournment, resolved that the 
 next General Conference* would be held "in Balti- 
 more, on the 20th of October, in the year 1800 ;" 3 
 but it met in that year on the 6th day of May. 
 
 This is explained by a resolution presented on 
 
 i Jesse Lee, History of Methodists, 1810, p. 193. 
 2 Discipline for 1792. 
 
 Journals of the General Conference of the Methodist Episcppal 
 Church, New York, 1855, Vol. I, p. 29. 
 
332 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 the second day of the session. The record is as 
 follows: 
 
 "Brother Snethen moved that, 'whereas, the General 
 Conference, held in the city of Baltimore, A. D., 1796, did re- 
 solve that the following General Conference should meet in 
 the said city of Baltimore upon the twentieth day of October, 
 A. D., 1800 ; and whereas, the prevalence of a very malignant 
 epidemic disorder, called the yellow fever, in Baltimore and 
 other sea-port towns, made it doubtful whether it would be 
 possible for the said General Conference to meet at that ses- 
 sion of the year ; and whereas, Mr. Asbury did, by the advice 
 of certain judicious friends, lay the case before the yearly 
 Conferences, and they likewise judged an alteration highly 
 necessary, and did appoint the time of meeting (for the above 
 reason only) to be Tuesday, the 6th of May, A. D., 1800, 
 
 "'Resolved, That this General Conference now met accord- 
 ing to the above alteration and appointment, do unanimously 
 approve of the said alteration, and ratify it accordingly.'," 
 
 The Journal states that the resolution " carried." l 
 It will be remembered that Lee stated that the 
 General Conference of 1792 formed "some rules and 
 regulations for conducting the business," but in the 
 Journal of the General Conference of 1800 we have 
 the first comprehensive series of rules of order 
 adopted by a General Conference. 
 
 As they have an historical interest, we quote : 
 
 " The following rules were agreed upon for the order of 
 the Conferences : 
 
 "1. Any person speaking shall not be interrupted, except 
 by the presidents, when they judge that he deviates too much 
 from the point ; nevertheless, an appeal may be made to the 
 Conference by any two members from the presidents, but 
 neither the Conference nor the presidents shall speak to the 
 point, but simply take the vote. 
 
 i Journal of General Conference, Vol. I, for years 179G-183G, p. 32. 
 
 
QUADRENNIAL GENERAL CONFERENCE. 333 
 
 " 2. No person shall have liberty to speak above a quarter of 
 an hour at a time, except with the permission of the Confer- 
 ence ; but still the Conference shall grant or prohibit without 
 debate. 
 
 "3. If any person thinks himself misrepresented by a 
 speaker, he shall have a right to explain, in as few words as 
 possible, after the speaker has done. 
 
 "4. No person shall speak oftener than three times on 
 any question. 
 
 "5. The sittings of Conference shall be from nine to 
 twelve in the morning, and from three to six in the afternoon. 
 
 "6. No question shall be proposed on a different subject 
 from that under debate, until the question debated be decided 
 or postponed. 
 
 " 7. A secretary shall be chosen by the Conference, who 
 shall keep a regular journal of all the proceedings of the Con- 
 ference, which journal shall be signed by the presidents and 
 countersigned by the secretary at the close of the Conference. 
 
 " 8. Nicholas Snethen is elected secretary. 
 
 "9. No motion shall be put, except by the presidents, 
 unless it be first delivered at the table in writing, after being 
 read by the mover and seconded. 
 
 " 10. No old rule shall be abolished except by a majority 
 of two-thirds. 
 
 "11. No member of the Conference shall leave the city of 
 Baltimore until the Conference adjourn, without first obtain- 
 ing leave of absence. 
 
 " 12. No member shall leave the room to go into the city 
 without leave. 
 
 ".13. The bishops are requested to arrange, and, from time 
 to time, to lay before the Conference such business as they 
 may judge expedient, provided the above regulation does not 
 affect the ninth rule. 
 
 " 14. Any member shall have liberty to copy, at pleasure, 
 any motion laid upon the table." 1 
 
 These parliamentary rules are rather peculiar. 
 They are very liberal in some particulars, and in 
 
 General Conference Journal, 1855, Vol. I, pp. 31, 32. 
 
334 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 others rather restricted. Some are very sound, even 
 according to the practice of the present day, while 
 the soundness of other rules would no doubt be 
 questioned. 
 
 A few of the points are worthy of special notice. 
 Thus: Only the president could interrupt a speaker; 
 on an appeal no debate was allowed, and even the 
 president could not state the reasons for his decision; 
 a member might speak three times on a question; 
 no member could leave the city without leave being 
 granted by the Conference ; the bishops were a com- 
 mittee to arrange and present business. The rule 
 that a member shall not have a right to correct a 
 misrepresentation until the speaker has finished his 
 speech is not bad law even to-day. 
 
 At this Conference of 1800 it was agreed " that 
 the election of a bishop shall be by ballot, written, 
 and put into a box or drawer." l On the first ballot 
 no one had a majority. On the second, "the tellers 
 reported that there was a tie between Richard What- 
 coat and Jesse Lee. They proceeded to a third 
 ballot, when Richard Whatcoat was declared to be 
 duly elected by a majority of four votes." 2 
 
 The Journal of the Conference has this record: 
 
 "The Conference proceeded to the election of a bishop; 
 the first poll being a tie, and supposed defective. Upon the 
 second, there were fifty-nine votes for Brother Richard What- 
 coat, fifty-five for Brother Jesse Lee, and one blank the 
 whole number of voters being one hundred and fifteen ; where- 
 upon Brother Richard Whatcoat was declared duly elected." 3 
 
 J General Conference Journal, Vol. I, p. 35. 
 
 Jesse Lee, History of the Methodists, Baltimore, 1810, p. 266. 
 
 General Conference Journal, Vol. I, pp. 36, 37. 
 
QUADRENNIAL GENERAL CONFERENCE. 335 
 
 We are inclined to give the preference to Rev. 
 Jesse Lee's account, for one who was so nearly 
 elected a bishop had probably a vivid recollection of 
 the entire transaction. Further, Lee is usually very 
 accurate, while most secretaries condense too much. 
 
 The General Conference of 1800 ordered the next 
 General Conference to "be held in the city of Balti- 
 more, on the sixth day of May, 1804 ;" ! and Lee says 
 it was held in that city and on that day, 2 but the 
 General Conference Journal gives May 7th as the 
 first day of the session. 3 It may be that on the 6th 
 preliminary exercises were held, and that the business 
 began the next day. 
 
 The three bishops were present at the General 
 Conference of 1804. It was at this Conference that, 
 on motion of the Rev. Ezekiel Cooper, of Phila- 
 delphia, the Twenty-third Article of Religion was 
 amended by striking out the words " General Act of 
 Confederation," and inserting " Constitution of the 
 United States," and after the word "States" insert- 
 ing the words "are a sovereign and independent 
 Nation." 
 
 Lee says : " We had several new regulations made 
 at this General Conference; one was as follows: 'The 
 bishops shall allow the Annual Conferences to sit a 
 week at least/ Before this rule was established the 
 bishop could conclude the business as soon as he 
 thought proper." 4 
 
 General Conference Journal, Vol. I, p. 43 ; Lee's History, p. 27L 
 Lee's History of the Methodists, 1810, p. 295. 
 8 General Conference Journal, Vol. I, p. 49. 
 < Lee's History of the Methodists, 1810, p. 298. 
 
336 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 The same member of the Conference laments 
 " that there was very little stir of religion among us 
 during the sitting of the Conference. " Commenting 
 on this, he says : " One principal reason of our bar- 
 renness, I believe, was owing to an improper plan 
 which was adopted by the Conference in the begin- 
 ning of their business, which was this: To admit 
 men, women, and children into the galleries of the 
 meeting-house to hear our debates. After a few days 
 we were obliged to close the galleries and sit in pri- 
 vate, according to our usual plan." 1 So in those 
 days the public were not admitted to hear the delib- 
 erations. 
 
 Again, referring to this Conference, Lee says: 
 " We had no Minutes of our General Conference 
 published in a pamphlet this year, although it had 
 been done at the preceding General Conferences; 
 but the alterations and additions which were made to 
 our rules were put into the chapters, sections, and 
 paragraphs where they belonged in the Form of 
 Discipline." 2 
 
 The Conference remained in session until the 23d 
 of May, and, "on several motions, the next General 
 Conference was appointed to meet in four years; viz., 
 on May 1, 1808, at Baltimore. " z But the Journal 
 states that the Conference began on the 6th of 
 May. 4 
 
 Thus from 1792 to 1808, General Conferences 
 
 1 Rev. Jesse Lee's History of the Methodists, 1810, p. 300. 
 
 2 Id., p. 298. 
 
 8 General Conference Journal, Vol. I, p. 68. 
 
 </d., p. 72 ; Lee's History of the Methodists, p. 345. 
 
QUADRENNIAL GENERAL (CONFERENCE. 337 
 
 had been held once in four years; and the Quadren- 
 nial General Conference, having been thoroughly 
 tested, was firmly incorporated in the economy of 
 the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States 
 of America. 
 
CHAPTER XII. 
 
 THE DELEGATED GENERAL CONFERENCE. 
 
 FROM 1792, when the first regular Quadrennial 
 General Conference was held, to 1808, the Meth- 
 odist Episcopal Church had made great progress. In 
 1792 there were 266 preachers, while in 1808 there 
 were 540, the number having more than doubled in 
 sixteen years. The membership in 1792 was 65,980; 
 but in 1808 it had grown to 151,995, very much more 
 than double. 
 
 The ministers were scattered all over the country 
 from^ the extreme north to the southern limit, and 
 as far west as the Mississippi River, so that it was 
 difficult for many of them to attend the General 
 Conference. 
 
 The increasing difficulty of getting so many 
 preachers together from such distant points, and the 
 loss of time and service by their long absences from 
 their charges in those days of slow travel, compelled 
 thoughtful men to perceive the need of further modi- 
 fication. 
 
 From these reflections came the suggestion to 
 change the composition of the General Conference so 
 that it would contain, not all the elders, but repre- 
 sentatives selected by the members of the several An- 
 nual Conferences. 
 
 338 
 
THE DELEGATED GENERAL CONFERENCE. 339 
 
 To the Rev. Jesse Lee belongs the honor of 
 being the first to suggest the idea of a delegated Gen- 
 eral Conference, and he made his suggestion before 
 the General Conference of 1792 had convened. 
 
 Under date of Thursday, July 7, 1791, Asbury 
 makes this entry in his journal : 
 
 " This day Brother Jesse Lee put a paper into my hand 
 proposing the election of not less than two, nor more than 
 four preachers from each Conference, to form a General Con- 
 ference in Baltimore, in December, 1792, to be continued an- 
 nually." 1 
 
 Lee's suggestion was not accepted at the time, but 
 no doubt it was the sowing of good seed from which 
 came a good harvest. 
 
 The idea of a delegated General Conference was 
 formally presented in the General Conference of 
 1800, but that body refused to sanction the arrange- 
 ment. The Journal of that year contains the follow- 
 ing under date of May 8th, the third day of the 
 session : 
 
 "Brother Folleson moved, that Whereas, much time has 
 been lost, and always will be lost, in the event of a General 
 Conference being continued ; and whereas, the circuits are left 
 without preachers for one, two, or. three months, and other 
 great inconveniences attend so many of the preachers leaving 
 their work, and no real advantage arises therefrom, 
 
 " Resolved, That instead of a General Conference we sub- 
 stitute a delegated one. 
 
 " Negatived." * 
 
 The resolution appears to have been reconsidered; 
 for on May 15th there is this entry : "Brother Tol- 
 
 i Bishop Asbury's Journal, 1821, Vol. II, p. 110. 
 General Conference Journal, Vol. I, p. 34. 
 
340 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 leson's motion for a delegated General Conference 
 was called up, and lost by a large majority." l 
 
 *[n one place the name is spelled Folleson and in 
 the other Tolleson. The probability is that the dif- 
 ference is a misprint by substituting an F for a T, 
 and that in both places the name should be Tolle- 
 son. In the list of preachers as given in the Min- 
 utes of that time there is no one named Folleson, but 
 there is a James Tolleson. 
 
 This James Tolleson was admitted on trial in 
 1791, and his name stands first in the list of those 
 so admitted that year. 2 In 1793 he was admitted 
 into full connection. 3 In 1799 his name appears 
 among the elders, 4 and in that year he was stationed 
 at Alexandria, Virginia. 5 In 1800 he was stationed 
 at Norfolk, Va. This was his charge when he at- 
 tended the General Conference of this year, for 
 his Annual or District Conference met on the 
 10th of April while the General Conference met 
 the following month. The Journal shows that in 
 the General Conference he was quite an active 
 member. In the month of August of the same year 
 he died. 
 
 The Minutes of 1801 contain this mention : 
 
 " Ques. 10. Who have died this year ?" 
 
 " Am. 1. James Tolleson, a native of South Carolina. He 
 labored as a traveling preacher between eight and nine years ; 
 during which time he rilled several important stations with 
 dignity and diligence, and moved from Georgia to New Jersey. 
 He possessed promising abilities both in gifts and understand- 
 
 i General Couference Journal, Vol. I, p, 39. 
 
 * Minutes of Conferences, Ed. of 1813, p. 97. ' Id., p. 121. 
 
 * Jd., p. 219. *Id., p. 228. 
 
THE DELEGATED GENERAL CONFERENCE. 341 
 
 ing ; but what is of infinitely more importance, he was a man 
 of piety and uniform in his religious deportment. He died 
 in August, 1800, of the malignant fever, in Portsmouth, Va., 
 with due preparation and great resignation of mind, mani- 
 festing that he possessed a lively sense of his acceptance 
 with God." 1 
 
 Such was the man who has the distinction of 
 first moving in a General Conference a proposition 
 for the creation of a delegated General Conference. 
 
 The thought soon began to develop and took 
 possession of many minds, and at last was taken 
 up in a formal manner by the New York Annual 
 Conference, and by it was presented to the attention 
 of the other Annual Conferences. 
 
 The Rev. Jesse Lee states that, as early as 1806, 
 the New York Conference made an attempt in this 
 direction, and to it he takes strong exception. He 
 says: 
 
 "In the course of the year 1806 there was a plan laid 
 which would have overset and destroyed the rules and regu- 
 lations of the Methodists respecting the election and ordina- 
 tion of bishops. It was said that the plan originated in the 
 New York Conference, which was as follows : ' To call a dele- 
 gated Conference of seven members from each Conference, 
 chosen by the Conference, to meet in Baltimore, to meet on 
 the 4th of July, 1807, to choose superintendents, etc. This 
 plan was adopted by four of the Conferences ; viz , New York, 
 New England, the Western and South Carolina Conferences ; 
 and delegates were accordingly chosen. But when it was 
 proposed to the Virginia Conference, which met in Newbern 
 in February, 1807, they refused to take it under consideration, 
 and rejected it as being pointedly in opposition to all the rules 
 of our Church. The bishop labored hard to carry the point, 
 but he labored in vain; and the whole business of that dan- 
 
 Minutes of Conferences, Ed., 1813, p. 254. 
 
342 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 gerous plan was overset by the Virginia Conference. The in- 
 ventors and defenders of that project might have meant 
 well ; but they certainly erred in judgment." 1 
 
 This was certainly a very remarkable and revolu- 
 tionary project. It totally ignored the Quadrennial 
 General Conference already established, and which 
 had been by the authoritative body ordered for May, 
 1808. It was also unfair in its disproportionate 
 representation, for by it the smallest Conference 
 would have the same number of delegates as the 
 largest. That the bishops should aid in promoting 
 such a scheme seems very strange. Thanks to the 
 spirited Virginia Conference, the project failed. 
 
 Dr. Nathan Bangs gives a slightly different version 
 of the matter. He says: 
 
 " This year a paper was submitted to the Annual Confer- 
 ences, beginning with the Baltimore Conference, by Bishop 
 Asbury, in favor of calling a General Conference of seven dele- 
 gates from each Annual Conference, to meet in the city of Bal- 
 timore, in May, 1807, for the purpose of strengthening the 
 episcopacy. This paper was referred to a committee to con- 
 sider and report thereon ; and all the Conferences except Vir- 
 ginia reported in favor of the proposition, and elected their 
 delegates accordingly. The report set forth, that in conse- 
 quence of the declining health of Bishop Whatcoat who was 
 then supposed to be near his end the great extension of our 
 work over the continent, and the debilitated state of Bishop 
 Asbury's health, it had become necessary to strengthen 
 the episcopacy, and likewise to provide for a more permanent 
 mode of Church government. The report therefore recom- 
 mended that each of the seven Annual Conferences should 
 elect seven delegates to meet in the city of Baltimore the suc- 
 ceeding May, and that, when so met, they should have power 
 
 Rev. Jesse Lee, History of the Methodists, 1810, pp. 344, 345. 
 
THIS DELEGATED GENKRAI, CONFERENCE. 343 
 
 to elect one bishop or more, and also to provide for a future 
 delegated General Conference, whose powers should be defined 
 and limited by constitutional restrictions; for hitherto the 
 General Conference possessed unlimited powers over our en- 
 tire economy could alter, abolish, or add to any article of 
 religion or any rule of Discipline. As this depositary of power 
 was considered too great for the safety of the Church and the 
 security of its gcvernment and doctrine ; and as the assembling 
 of all the elders, few or many at the option of each Annual 
 Conference, made the representation very unequal ; and more- 
 over if all came who had a right to a seat, involved a great 
 amount of expense, time, and money, Bishop Asbury was ex- 
 ceedingly desirous, before he should depart hence, to provide 
 a remedy for these evils ; and this desire was strengthened 
 and excited to action at this time by the concurrent views and 
 wishes of most of the oldest preachers in the Conferences. 
 
 " It is proper to remark that this plan was concurred in 
 and the delegates were elected by all the Annual Conferences 
 until it was submitted to the Virginia Conference, where, 
 being warmly opposed by the Rev. Jesse Lee, who had great 
 influence in that Conference, a majority voted against its 
 adoption, and so the whole plan was abandoned for the present ; 
 for it was the understanding that, unless all the Conferences 
 concurred in the measure, it should not be carried into effect. 
 This defeat of a favorite project so feasible in itself, and ap- 
 parently so necessary to the prosperity of the Church and the 
 perpetuity of her institutions, was a source of great grief to 
 Bishop Asbury as well as of regret to those who had concurred 
 in his views." * 
 
 So Dr. Bangs appears to attribute the movement 
 to Bishop Asbury, and says the Baltimore was the 
 first Conference to take it up; but Lee may be right 
 in saying it originated in the New York Conference, 
 at least among its members. 
 
 However this may be, serious objections may be 
 
 i N. Bangs, D. D., History of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 1853, 
 3d Ed., Vol. II, pp. 177, 178. 
 
344 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 raised against the project even as stated by Dr. 
 Bangs ; for he only shifts the responsibility. 
 
 Later, however, the New York Conference re- 
 newed the idea of a delegated General Conference in 
 an unobjectionable way. 
 
 On the 7th of May, 1807, the New York Con- 
 ference drew up and adopted a memorial to the Gen- 
 eral Conference praying for the creation of " a rep- 
 resentative delegated General Conference" to take 
 the place of that which was composed of all the 
 traveling preachers in full connection at the time of 
 holding the Conference, and had traveled four years 
 from the time that they were received on trial by an 
 Annual Conference. 
 
 In this memorial there was a request that the 
 preachers in all the Annual Conferences which would 
 meet before the session of the General Conference of 
 1808 join in the memorial to the General Conference. 
 
 The memorial is as follows: 
 
 " THE MEMORIAL OF THE NEW YORK CONFERENCE TO THE 
 GENP^RAL CONFERENCE OF THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL 
 CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES, TO SIT IN BALTIMORE, 
 THE SIXTH OF MAY, 1808: 
 
 " VERY DEAR BRETHREN, We, as one of the seven eyes of 
 the great and increasing body of the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church in the United States, which is composed of about five 
 hundred traveling preachers and about two thousand local 
 preachers, together with upward of one hundred and forty 
 thousand members; these, with our numerous congregations 
 and families, spread over an extent of country more than 
 
 t wo miles from one end to the other, amounting in all 
 
 probability to more than one million of souls, which are di- 
 rectly or remotely under our pastoral oversight and minis- 
 terial charge, should engage our most sacred attention, and 
 
THE DELEGATED GENERAL CONFERENCE. 345 
 
 should call into exertion all the wisdom and talents we are 
 possessed of to perpetuate the unity and prosperity of the 
 whole Connection, and to establish such regulations, rules, and 
 forms of government as may, by the blessing of God in Jesus 
 Christ, promote the cause of that religion which is more 
 precious to us than riches, honor, or life itself, and be con- 
 ducive to the salvation of souls among the generations yet un- 
 born. The fields are white unto harvest before us, and the 
 opening prospect of the great day of glory brightens continu- 
 ally in our view ; and we are looking forward with hopeful 
 expectations for the universal spread of Scriptural truth and 
 holiness over the inhabitable globe. Brethren, for what have 
 we labored; for what have we suffered; for what have we 
 borne the reproach of Christ, with much long-suffering, with 
 tears and with sorrow, but to serve the great and eternal purpose 
 of the grace of God in the present and everlasting felicity of 
 immortal souls ? When we take a serious and impartial view of 
 this important subject, and consider the extent of our Connec- 
 tion, the number of our preachers, the great inconvenience, ex- 
 pense, and loss of time that must necessarily result from our 
 present regulations relative to our General Conference, we are 
 deeply impressed with a thorough conviction that a represent- 
 ative or delegated General Conference, composed of a specific 
 number on principles of equal representation from the several 
 Annual Conferences, would be much more conducive to the 
 prosperity and general unity of the whole body, than the pres- 
 ent indefinite and numerous body of ministers, collected to- 
 gether unequally from the various Conferences, to the great in- 
 convenience of the ministry and injury of the work of God. 
 We therefore present unto you this memorial, requesting that 
 you will adopt the principle of an equal representation from 
 the Annual Conferences, to form, in future, a delegated Gen- 
 eral Conference, and that you will establish such rules and 
 regulations as are necessary to carry the same into effect. 
 
 " As we are persuaded that our brethren in general, from 
 a view of the situation and circumstances of the connection, 
 must be convinced, upon mature and impartial reflection, of 
 the propriety and necessity of the measure, we forbear to 
 enumerate the various reasons and arguments which might be 
 urged in support of it. But we do hereby instruct, advise, and 
 
 23 
 
346 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 request every member who shall go from our Conference to 
 the General Conference to urge, if necessary, every reason and 
 argument in favor of the principle, and to use all their Chris- 
 tian influence to have the same adopted and carried into effect. 
 
 " And we also shall, and do, invite and request our 
 brethren in the several Annual Conferences, which are to sit 
 between this and the General Conference, to join and unite 
 with us in the subject matter of this memorial. We do hereby 
 candidly and openly express our opinion, and wish, with the 
 firmest attachment to the union and prosperity of the connec- 
 tion, hoping and praying that our Chief Shepherd and Bishop 
 of our Souls, the Lord Jesus Christ, may direct you in all wis- 
 dom, righteousness, brotherly love, and Chiistian unity. 
 
 " We are, dear brethren, in the bonds of gospel ties, most 
 affectionately yours, etc. 
 
 "By order and in behalf of the New York Conference, 
 without a dissenting vote. 
 
 " (Signed,) FRANCIS WARD, Secretary. 
 
 " COEYMANS PATENT, May 7, 1807." l 
 
 Following the memorial from the New York Con- 
 ference, the Journal of the General Conference of 
 1808 gives the following certificates: 
 
 "The Eastern Conference 2 unamiously voted to concur 
 with the New York Conference in the subject matter of the 
 above memorial. "THOMAS BRANCH, Secretary. 
 
 "BOSTON CONFERENCE, June 3, 1807." 
 
 " The Western Conference unanimously voted to concur 
 with the New York Conference in the subject matter of the 
 above memorial. " WILLIAM BURKE, Secretary. 
 
 " CHILLICOTHE, 0., September 16, 1807." 
 
 "The South Carolina Conference, with the exception of 
 five members, concur with the New York Conference in the 
 above memorial. "LEWIS MYERS, Secretary. 
 
 "JANUARY 2, 1808." 3 
 
 1 General Conference Journal, Vol. I, pp. 77-78. 
 
 2 Jn the Journal called also the New England Conference. 
 8 General Conference Journal, Vol. I, pp. 77, 78. 
 
THE DELEGATED GENERAL CONFERENCE. 347 
 
 At that time there were seven Annual Conferences. 
 It therefore appears that, for some reason, the Vir- 
 ginia, Baltimore, and Philadelphia Conferences did 
 not concur. Possibly the memorial was not sent, or 
 was not sent in time, to these Conferences; but as to 
 this we have no information. 
 
 As it was, the measure had the unanimous sup- 
 port of a majority of the Conferences, though the 
 three Conferences which had not concurred were 
 stronger in every way than the four above named. 
 
 Jesse Lee, referring to the General Conference of 
 1808, remarks that "the two hundred and nineteenth 
 [Conference] was the fifth General Conference, held in 
 Baltimore on the 6th of May." l Again he says : 
 " In the month of May we had our fifth and last 
 General Conference." 2 By this he evidently meant 
 the last general meeting of all the ministers who were 
 in full membership and had traveled four years from 
 the time they had been received on trial in an Annual 
 Conference. Other General Conferences were held after- 
 ward, but they were not composed of the ministers gen- 
 erally. It will now be our purpose to give a detailed 
 history of the transactions in the General Conference 
 of 1808, which were based on the appeal for a dele- 
 gated General Conference ; and in this narration we 
 will cite the exact language of the Journal of that 
 body. On Monday afternoon, May 9, 1808, the 
 memorial was read in the General Conference, but 
 no action was taken that day. 3 The next morning 
 
 1 Jesse Lee, History of the Methodists, 1810, p. 345. *Id. t p. 347. 
 8 General Conference Journal for 1808, p. 76. 
 
348 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 " Bishop Asbury called for the mind of the Confer- 
 ence, whether any further regulation in the order of 
 the General Conference be necessary ; the question 
 was put, and carried in the affirmative." ] 
 
 It was " moved by Stephen G. Roszel, and sec- 
 onded by William Burke, that a committee be ap- 
 pointed to draw up such regulations as they may 
 think best, to regulate the General Conferences, and 
 report the same to this Conference. Carried." 2 
 
 The next motion will probably excite surprise in 
 the minds of those who are not familiar with the 
 nature of the early General Conferences. 
 
 It was "moved by Bishop Asbury that the com- 
 mittee be formed from an equal number from each of 
 the Annual Conferences. Carried." 3 
 
 At that time the bishops were members of the 
 General Conference, which was not a delegated body, 
 but an assemblage of the elders or of the ministers 
 who were in full membership in an Annual Conference, 
 and had traveled at least four years from the time 
 they had been received on probation in an Annual 
 Conference. On that basis the bishops had equal 
 rights on the floor with other presbyters. 
 
 It was then "moved by John McClaskey, and 
 seconded by Joseph Aydelot, that the committee con- 
 sist of three members from each Annual Conference, 
 to be chosen by their own members present. Lost." 4 
 
 Then it was " moved by Stephen G. Roszel, and 
 
 i General Conference Journal, 1808, p. 78. Id., p. 79. 
 'General Conference Journal, Ed. 1855, Vol. I, 1808, p. 79. 
 < General Conference Journal, v ol. I, p. 79. 
 
THK DELEGATED GENERAL CONFERENCE. 349 
 
 seconded by William Burke, that the committee be 
 formed by two from each of the Conferences, chosen 
 by their respective Conferences. Carried." 1 
 
 The following preachers, namely, "Ezekiel Cooper 
 and John Wilson from the New York, George Pick- 
 ering and Joshua Soule from the New England Con- 
 ference, William McKendree and William Burke 
 from the Western, William Phoebus and Josias Kan- 
 die from the South Carolina, Philip Bruce and Jesse 
 Lee from the Virginia, Stephen G. Eoszel and Nelson 
 Reed from the Baltimore, and John McClaskey and 
 Thomas Ware from Philadelphia Conference, were 
 elected" the committee. 2 
 
 This committee did not bring in a report until 
 Monday morning, May 16th. That morning the first 
 recorded item of business is as follows: 
 
 " Eead the report of the committee relative to regulating 
 and perpetuating General Conferences." 3 
 
 Then the report was entered, as follows : 
 
 "WHEREAS, It is of the greatest importance that the doc- 
 trines, form of government, and general rules of the United 
 Societies in America be preserved sacred and inviolable ; 
 
 "And WHEREAS, Every prudent measure should be taken 
 to preserve, strengthen, and perpetuate the union of the Con- 
 nection ; 
 
 "Therefore, your committee, upon the maturest deliber- 
 ation, have thought it advisable that the third section of the 
 Form of Discipline shall be as follows, viz. : 
 
 "SECTION III. OF THE GENERAL CONFERENCE. 
 
 "1st. The General Conference shall be composed of dele- 
 gates from the Annual Conferences. 
 
 General Conference Journal, 1808, Vol. I, p. 79. 
 
 General Conference Journal, Ed. 1855, Vol. I, p. 79. Id., p. 81. 
 
350 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 "2d. The delegates shall be chosen by ballot, without de 
 bate, in the Annual Conferences respectively, in the last 
 meeting of Conference previous to the meeting of the General 
 Conference. 
 
 "3d. Each Annual Conference respectively shall have a 
 right to send seven elders, members of their Conference, as 
 delegates to the General Conference. 
 
 "4th. Each Annual Conference shall have a right to send 
 one delegate, in addition to the seven, for every ten members 
 belonging to such Conference over and above fifty so that if 
 there be sixty members, they shall send eight; if seventy, 
 they shall send nine ; and so on, in proportion. 
 
 "5th. The General Conference shall meet on the first day 
 of May, in the year of our Lord eighteen hundred and twelve, 
 and thenceforward on the first day of May, once in four years 
 perpetually, at such place or places as shall be fixed on by the 
 General Conference from time to time. 
 
 "6th. At all times, when the General Conference is met, 
 it shall take two-thirds of the whole number of delegates to 
 form a quorum. 
 
 "7th. One of the original superintendents shall preside 
 in the General Conference ; but in case no general superin- 
 tendent be present, the General Conference shall choose a 
 president pro tern. 
 
 "8th. The General Conference shall have full powers to 
 make rules, regulations, and canons for our Church, under the 
 following limitations and restrictions, viz. : 
 
 "The General Conference shall not revoke, alter, or 
 change our Articles of Religion, nor establish any new stand- 
 ards of doctrine. 
 
 "They shall not lessen the number of seven delegates 
 from each Annual Conference, nor allow of a greater number 
 from any Annual Conference than is provided in the fourth 
 paragraph of this section. 
 
 " They shall not change or alter any part or rule of our 
 government so as to do away episcopacy, or to destroy the 
 plan of our itinerant general superintendency. 
 
 " They shall not revoke or change the General Rules of the 
 United Societies. 
 
 " They shall not do away the privileges of our ministers 
 
THK DKivKGATED GENERAL CONFERENCE. 351 
 
 or preachers of trial by a committee, and of an appeal ; neither 
 shall they do away the privileges of our members of trial 
 before the society, or by a committee, [and ?] of an appeal. 
 
 "They "shall not appropriate the produce of the Book 
 Concern or of the Charter Fund to any purpose other than 
 for the benefit of the traveling, superannuated, supernu- 
 merary, and worn-out preachers, their wives, widows, and 
 children. 
 
 "Provided, nevertheless, that upon the joint recommen- 
 dation of all the Annual Conferences, then a majority of two- 
 thirds of the General Conference succeeding shall suffice to 
 alter any of the above restrictions." l 
 
 This committee proposed, therefore, that the doc- 
 trines, forms of government, and the General Rules 
 should be protected and preserved. As a means to 
 this end, it proposed the formation of a General Con- 
 ference. In the plan for its creation, it makes it a 
 representative body; recognizes the right of every 
 Conference to representation and in proportion to its 
 membership; suggests the principle of election by 
 ballot; gives the General Conference full power to 
 make "rules, regulations, and canons" for the Church, 
 under certain specified restrictions; and provides a 
 method for amending these restrictions, which declares 
 the proposed amendment must originate in the An- 
 nual Conferences. 
 
 Among the peculiar points in this report is the 
 phrase, "original superintendents." What is meant 
 by this? Coke and Asbury were "original superin- 
 tendents," in the sense that they were the first se- 
 lected by Wesley, and the first elected by the Meth- 
 odist Episcopal Church in General Conference 
 
 General Conference Journal, 1808, pp. 82,83. 
 
352 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 assembled. Whatcoat had died in 1806. At this 
 General Conference of 1808, and on the 12th of 
 May four days before the report was presented 
 William McKendree was elected to the office of 
 bishop. 1 Bishop Coke was out of the country, and 
 the Conference, on the 9th of May, had passed the 
 following: 
 
 " Resolved, That Dr. Coke's name shall be retained on our 
 Minutes after the name of the bishop, in a N. B. ' Doctor 
 Coke, at the request of the British Conference and by the con- 
 sent of General Conference, resides in Europe ;' he is not to 
 exercise the office of superintendent or bishop among us in 
 the United States until he be recalled by the General Confer- 
 ence, or by all the Annual Conferences respectively." 2 
 
 This practically deposed Bishop Coke until he 
 should be called as above. Of course this kind of a 
 displacement was merely because he was out of the 
 country much of the time, and because his attention 
 was given largely to the interests of Methodism in 
 Great Britain and her missions in the British pos- 
 sessions. 
 
 If "original" meant one of the first elected, 
 then, according to this proposition, Bishop Asbury 
 was the only bishop who could preside, and Bishop 
 McKendree and others who might be elected could 
 not preside over the General Conference, at least as 
 long as Asbury was present. 
 
 The title "general superintendent" appears in 
 this report probably for the first time in any formal 
 or official document; but from this time it comes 
 into common use. 
 
 1 General Conference Journal, Vol. I, p. 81. Id., p. 76. 
 
THE: DELEGATED GENERAL CONFERENCE. 353 
 
 As soon as the report had been read, it was 
 " voted that the Conference proceed immediately to 
 the subject of the report of the committee," l and in 
 the afternoon of the same day the Conference " con- 
 tinued the debate on the report of the committee of 
 fourteen." 2 
 
 Bangs says the report was discussed "for one 
 whole day." 3 
 
 After debate, and probably toward the close of 
 the afternoon session of May 16th, it was "moved 
 by Ezekiel Cooper, and seconded by Joshua Wells, 
 to postpone the present question to make room for 
 the consideration of a new resolution, as prepara- 
 tory to the minds of the brethren to determine the 
 present subject," 4 and the motion prevailed. 
 
 It was then " moved by Ezekiel Cooper, and sec- 
 onded by Joshua Wells, the following resolution, viz. : 
 
 " Resolved, That in the fifth section of Discipline, after the 
 question, 'By whom shall the presiding elders be chosen?' 
 the answer shall be, 'Ans. 1. Each Annual Conference re- 
 spectively, without debate, shall annually choose, by ballot, 
 its own presiding elders.' " 5 
 
 The next day was devoted to the presiding elder 
 question, and a motion to postpone was lost by a 
 vote of fifty-nine nays to fifty-six ayes. 
 
 On the following morning May 18th, a ballot 
 vote was taken on the motion for electing pre- 
 
 1 General Conference Journal, 1808, p. 83. 
 8 General Conference Journal, Vol. I, p. 83. 
 
 "Nathan Bangs, D. D., History of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
 New York, 1853, 3d Ed., Vol. II, p. 231. 
 
 * General Conference Journal, Vol. I, p. 83. 6 2bicL 
 
354 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 siding elders, and fifty-two voted in the affirmative 
 and seventy three in the negative; so the motion 
 was lost. 1 
 
 On the afternoon of the same day (Wednesday, 
 May 18th) the report of "the committee of fourteen," 
 as it was called, was taken up, and it was " moved 
 by John McClaskey, and seconded by Daniel 
 Ostrander, that the vote on the first resolution of the 
 report of the committee of fourteen be taken by bal- 
 lot." The motion was carried, and ft the first resolu- 
 tion of the report of the commitee of fourteen being 
 put to vote, there were yeas, fifty-seven; nays, sixty- 
 four," and the resolution was lost. 2 
 
 Bangs states " the entire report was rejected by a 
 majority of seven votes." 3 
 
 The Journal states that " the first resolution " was 
 voted down ; but probably both statements harmo- 
 nize; for the first resolution was that "the General 
 Conference shall be composed of delegates from the 
 Annual Conferences," and to vote this down was to 
 vote against the whole idea of a delegated General 
 Conference. Possibly the proposal that only an 
 " original superintendent " could preside had some- 
 thing to do with the rejection of the report. 
 
 On Monday morning, May 23, 1808, consideration 
 of the subject was resumed, and it was " moved by 
 Enoch George, and seconded by Stephen G. Roszel, 
 that the General Conference shall be composed of 
 one member for every five members of each Annual 
 
 1 General Conference Journals, Vol. I, p. 84. 2 Ibid. 
 
 N. Bangs, D. D., History of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 1853, 
 Sd Ed., Vol. II, p. 231. 
 
THE DELEGATED GENERAL, CONFERENCE. 355 
 
 Conference," and this was " carried by a very large 
 majority." 1 
 
 This showed a desire to keep the representation 
 as large as possible. Immediately after the adoption 
 of the previous motion, it was " moved by Joshua 
 Soule, and seconded by George Pickering, that each 
 Annual Conference shall have the power of sending 
 their proportionate number of members to the Gen- 
 eral Conference, either by seniority or choice, as they 
 shall think best." 2 
 
 In the Minutes of the afternoon of the same day 
 appears the record that " Brother Joshua Soule's 
 motion of this morning, being put to vote, was 
 carried." 3 
 
 " Moved by Stephen G. Roszel, and seconded by 
 George Pickering, that the next General Conference 
 be held on the 1st of May, 1812. Carried." 4 
 
 " Moved by William Thatcher, and seconded by 
 Joseph Crawford, that the next General Conference 
 be held in New York. For New York, fifty-six ; for 
 Baltimore, forty -eight. Carried." 5 
 
 Heretofore all the General Conferences had been 
 held in Baltimore ; now, for the first time, it is agreed 
 to hold one, and that the first delegated General Con- 
 ference, in the city of New York. 
 
 Then it was " moved by Stephen G. Roszel, and 
 seconded by Jesse Lee, that it shall take two-thirds ot 
 the representatives of all the Annual Conferences to 
 form a quorum for business in the General Confer- 
 ence. For it, 53; against it, 46. Carried." 6 
 
 i General Conference Journal, Vol. I, p. 88. *lbid. *Ibid. 
 
 *Ibid. *lbid. Ibid. 
 
356 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 The next day, Tuesday, May 24th, it was " moved 
 by Jesse Lee, and seconded by William Burke, that 
 the next General Conference shall not change or alter 
 any part or rule of our government, so as to do away 
 episcopacy, or to destroy the plan of our itinerant 
 general superintendency. Carried." 1 
 
 " Moved by Stephen G. Roszel, and seconded by 
 George Pickering, that one of the superintendents 
 preside in the General Conference ; but in case of the 
 absence of a superintendent, the Conference shall elect 
 a president pro tern. Carried." 2 
 
 "Moved by Stephen G. Roszel, and seconded by 
 Nelson Reed, that the General Conference shall have 
 full powers to make rules and regulations for our 
 Church, under the following restrictions, viz.: 
 
 " 1. The General Conference shall not revoke, 
 alter, or change our Articles of Religion, nor estab- 
 lish any new standards or rules of doctrine contrary 
 to our present existing and established standards of 
 doctrine. Carried. 
 
 " 2. They shall not allow of more than one rep- 
 resentative for every five members of the Annual 
 Conference, nor allow of a less number than one for 
 every seven. Carried." 3 
 
 At this point there seems to have been an inter- 
 ruption, for it was " moved by Daniel Hitt, and sec- 
 onded by Samuel Coate, that a committee of three 
 be appointed to modify certain exceptionable expres- 
 sions in the General Rules. Lost." 4 
 
 i General Conference Journal, Vol. I, p. 89. / bid. 8 Ibid. 
 
THE DELEGATED GENERAL CONFERENCE. 357 
 
 Then consideration of Mr. RoszeFs proposition 
 was resumed, as follows: 
 
 "3. They shall not revoke or change the ' Gen- 
 eral Rules of the United Societies. 7 Carried. 
 
 " 4. They shall not do away the privileges of our 
 ministers or preachers of trial by a committee, and 
 of an appeal; neither shall they do away the privi- 
 leges of our members of trial before the society, or by 
 a committee, and of an appeal. Carried. 
 
 " 5. They shall not appropriate the produce of the 
 Book Concern or of the Charter Fund to any pur- 
 pose other than for the benefit of the traveling, su- 
 pernumerary, superannuated, and worn-out preachers, 
 their wives, widows, and children. Carried. 
 
 " 6. Provided, nevertheless, that upon the joint 
 recommendation of all the Annual Conferences, then 
 a majority of two-thirds of the General Conference 
 succeeding shall suffice to alter any of the above re- 
 strictions. Carried. " 1 
 
 On the afternoon of that day. May 24th, it was 
 " moved by Daniel Ostrander, and seconded by Eze- 
 kiel Cooper, that the general superintendents, with 
 or by the advice of all the Annual Conferences, or, 
 if there be no general superintendent, all the Annual 
 Conferences respectively, shall have power to call a 
 General Conference, if they judge it necessary at any 
 time. Carried." 5 
 
 It was then " moved by the chair that the General 
 Conference shall meet on the first day of May, once 
 in four years, perpetually, at such place or places as 
 
 i General Conference Journal, Vol. I, p. 89. Id., p. 90. 
 
358 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 shall be fixed on by the General Conference from 
 time to time. Carried." 1 
 
 On the afternoon of the last day of the session, 
 and the closing session, May 26th, it was " moved by 
 Joseph Totten, and seconded by Stephen G. Roszel, 
 that no preacher shall be sent as a representative to the 
 General Conference until he has traveled at least four 
 full calendar years from the time that he was received 
 on trial by an Annual Conference, and is in full con- 
 nection at the time of holding the Conference. Car- 
 ried." 2 
 
 This is a verbatim statement of the action of the 
 General Conference of 1808, as contained in the 
 Journal of that Conference. 
 
 The order of voting seems peculiar, and the rec- 
 ord appears to be greatly condensed. It is not stated 
 that the resolutions adopted were presented as amend- 
 ments to, or substitute for, the report of the com- 
 mittee ; but the irregular way in which they were 
 introduced by various individuals, gives them the ap- 
 pearance of individual and independent motions. 
 
 The order, perhaps, is not very parliamentary, if 
 the resolutions are to be considered as amendments 
 to the report; but the probable explanation is that 
 the report, which had been voted down, was not re- 
 considered ; but the matter was brought up piece- 
 meal by various parties, and it will, be noticed that 
 there are variations from the language of the report. 
 Thus, in the seventh resolution of the committee the 
 title "general superintendent" is used; but in the 
 
 General Conference Journal, Vol. I, p. 90. 2 Id., p. 95. 
 
THK DELEGATED GENERAL CONFERENCE. 359 
 
 resolution as proposed by Mr. Roszel, the title is sim- 
 ply "superintendent." Again, the report had no 
 provision for calling an extra session of the General 
 Conference ; but Mr. Ostrander's resolution had such 
 a provision. 
 
 To recapitulate, we find that on a ballot vote the 
 first resolution of the committee was not agreed to 
 on May 18th. 
 
 Then nothing appears to have been done until 
 May 23d, when on the motion of Enoch George, it 
 was decided that " the General Conference shall be 
 composed of one member for every five members of 
 each Annual Conference." 
 
 This appears to have taken the place of Resolu- 
 tions 3- and 4 of the Committee's report. 
 
 Then came Joshua Soule's motion that " each An- 
 nual Conference shall have the power of sending 
 their proportionate number of members to the Gen- 
 eral Conference, either by seniority or choice, as they 
 shall think best." 
 
 Then followed Stephen G. RoszePs motion, that 
 " the next General Conference be held on the first 
 day of May, 1812." 
 
 Then William Thacher's motion, that "the next 
 General Conference be held in New York." 
 
 Then Stephen G. Roszel's motion, that " it shall 
 take two-thirds of the representatives of all the An- 
 nual Conferences to form a quorum for business in 
 the General Conference." 
 
 Then came Jesse Lee's motion, that a the General 
 Conference shall not change or alter any part or rule 
 
360 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 of our government, so as to do away episcopacy, or 
 to destroy the plan of our itinerant general super! n- 
 tendency." 
 
 This is the same as the committee's third restric- 
 tion, with the exception of the form of opening the 
 paragraph. The committee had "They shall not 
 change," etc. Lee made it " The General Conference 
 shall not change/ 7 etc., which is better style. 
 
 Then followed Stephen G. Roszel's motion, that 
 " One of the superintendents preside in the General 
 Conference ; but in case of the absence of a superin- 
 tendent, the Conference shall elect a president pro tern." 
 
 This is the substance of the committee's seventh 
 paragraph, with verbal alterations. The committee 
 had said : " One of the original superintendents shall 
 preside/' etc. 
 
 This, as already observed, seemed o mean Bishop 
 Coke and Bishop Asbury, and was intended to confer 
 an honor or rank upon them which the committee 
 did not desire to give to their successors, at least as 
 long as the " original superintendents," named by 
 Mr. Wesley and elected by the Christmas Confer- 
 ence of 1784, survived. 
 
 Then followed Stephen G. Roszel's paper on the 
 powers of the General Conference, with the limitations 
 placed on those powers.- "The General Conference 
 shall have full powers to make rules and regulations 
 for our Church, under the following restrictions." 
 This is similar to the report of the committee, with 
 the words "canons" and" limitations and" stricken 
 out. 
 
THE DELEGATED GENERAL CONFERENCE. 361 
 
 Mr. Roszel's first restriction was the same as the 
 committee's first restriction, with the addition of the 
 words "contrary to our present existing and estab- 
 lished standards of doctrine/' so that it read : " The 
 General Conference shall not revoke, alter, or change 
 our Articles of Religion, nor establish any new 
 standards or rules of doctrine, contrary to our present 
 existing and established standards of doctrine." 
 
 Mr. Roszel's second restriction changed the num- 
 ber proposed as the basis of representation by the 
 committee, and made a sliding scale between five and 
 seven, and was as follows : " They shall not allow of 
 more than one representative for every five members 
 of the Annual Conference, nor allow of a less num- 
 ber than one for every seven." 
 
 Mr. Roszel's third restriction was the same as the 
 committee's fourth, namely: "They shall not revoke 
 or change the ' General Rules of the United So- 
 cieties.' r ' 
 
 His fourth restriction was the same as the com- 
 mittee's fifth, but with the insertion of the word 
 " and " after the word committee. The record in the 
 published Journal reads, "by a committee and of an 
 appeal." Mr. Roszel's reads, " by a committee and 
 of an appeal." The "and," however, was probably 
 omitted unintentionally in the committee's report, or 
 in the report as printed in the published Journal. 
 
 Mr. Roszel's fifth restriction was the same as the 
 committee's sixth, but with the transposition of the 
 words supernumerary and superannuated. The com- 
 mittee had the order " traveling, superannuated, 
 
 24 
 
362 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 supernumerary, and worn-out preachers," but Mr. 
 Koszel gave that which was a more natural order; 
 namely, " traveling, supernumerary, superannuated, 
 and worn-out preachers ;" for the usual course is for 
 the active minister to become a supernumerary min- 
 ister before he goes on the superannuated list. 
 
 Mr. RoszePs provision as to amendments to the 
 restrictions is the same as the proviso presented by 
 the committee. 
 
 Then came Daniel Ostrander's provision for call- 
 ing an extra session of the General Conference, a 
 point for which the committee had made no provision. 
 
 At this point the bishop appears to have called at- 
 tention to a matter mentioned by the committee, but 
 on which the Conference had not taken action. 
 
 The Conference had, on motion of Mr. Koszel, 
 agreed that "the next Conference be held on the first 
 day of May, 1812," but no provision was made for 
 subsequent General Conferences or at what interval 
 they should meet. So the bishop's motion that " the 
 General Conference shall meet on the first day of 
 May, once in four years perpetually, at such place or 
 places as shall be fixed on by the General Conference 
 from time to time." 
 
 This is the same as the paragraph reported by 
 the committee, with the exception that the words " in 
 the year of our Lord eighteen hundred and twelve, 
 and thenceforward on the 1st day of May," were 
 omitted. 
 
 At the closing session it appears to have been 
 discovered that on the part of delegates there should 
 
THK DELEGATED GENERAL CONFERENCE;. 363 
 
 be further qualification than mere membership in an 
 Annual Conference, the only qualification which prior 
 to this had been suggested by either the committee 
 or the Conference. 
 
 So, on Joseph Totten's motion, it was agreed that 
 " no preacher shall be sent as a representative to the 
 General Conference until he has traveled at least four 
 full calendar years from the time that he was received 
 on trial by an Annual Conference, and is in full con- 
 nection at the time of holding the Conference." 
 
 If the action of the General Conference be ar- 
 ranged in chronological order, it will give us the fol- 
 lowing result : 
 
 " The General Conference shall be composed of one mem- 
 ber for every five members of each Annual Conference." 
 
 " Each Annual Conference shall have the power of send- 
 ing their proportionate number of members to the General 
 Conference, either by seniority or choice, as they shall think 
 best." 
 
 " The next General Conference shall be held on the 1st day 
 of May, 1812." 
 
 " The next General Conference shall be held in New York." 
 
 " It shall take two-thirds of the representatives of all 
 the Annual Conferences to form a quorum for business in the 
 General Conference." 
 
 " The next General Conference shall not change or alter 
 any part or rule of our government, so as to do away episco- 
 pacy, or to destroy the plan of our itinerant general superin- 
 tendency." 
 
 "That one of the superintendents preside in the General 
 Conference ; but in case of the absence of a superintendent, 
 the Conference shall elect a president pro tern." 
 
 " The General Conference shall have full powers to make 
 rules and regulations for our Church under the following re- 
 strictions : 
 
 " 1. The General Conference shall not revoke, alter, or 
 
364 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 change our articles of religion, nor establish any new stand- 
 ards or rules of doctrine contrary to our present existing and 
 established standards of doctrine. 
 
 "2. They shall not allow of more than one representa- 
 tive for every five members of the Annual Conference, nor 
 allow of a less number than one for every seven. 
 
 "3. They shall not revoke or change the 'General Rules of 
 the United Societies.' 
 
 "4. They shall not do away the privileges of our minis- 
 ters or preachers of trial by a committee, and of an appeal ; 
 neither shall they do away the privileges of our members of 
 trial before the society, or by a committee, and of an appeal. 
 
 " 5. They shall not appropriate the produce of the Book 
 Concern, or of the Charter Fund, to any purpose other than 
 for the benefit of the traveling, supernumerary, superannuated, 
 and worn out preachers, their wives, widows, and children. 
 
 "6. Provided, nevertheless, that upon the joint recom- 
 mendation of all^the Annual Conferences, then a majority of 
 two-thirds of the General Conference succeeding shall suffice 
 to alter any of the above restrictions. 
 
 " The general superintendents, with or by the advice of 
 all the Annual Conferences, or, if there be no general super- 
 intendent, all the Annual Conferences respectively, shall have 
 power to call a General Conference, if they judge it necessary, 
 at any time. 
 
 " The General Conference shall meet on the first day of 
 May once in four years, perpetually, at such place or places 
 as shall be fixed on by the General Conference from time 
 to time. 
 
 " No preacher shall be sent as a representative to the Gen- 
 eral Conference until he has traveled at least four full calendar 
 years from the time he was received on trial by an Annual 
 Conference, and is in full connection at the time of holding 
 the Conference." 
 
 As far as the Journal shows, this is the way this 
 matter was left by the General Conference of 1808 ; 
 but it is evident that the chronological order is not 
 
THE DELEGATED GENERAL CONFERENCE. 365 
 
 the logical order, and that a better arrangement of 
 the several actions of the General Conference could 
 be made without destroying the intention of the Con- 
 ference. For example, it is apparent that the resolu- 
 tion forbidding the General Conference to take 
 certain action in regard to the episcopacy was a 
 limitation, and logically belonged to the list of 
 restrictions. 
 
 It is also plain that the three separate actions as 
 to the time and place of the next General Confer- 
 ence and the interval between the regular sessions of 
 the General Conference should be combined, and that 
 the other resolutions, agreed to after the adoption of 
 the Restrictive Rules, should be blended with the para- 
 graphs preceding the declaration as to the powers of 
 the General Conference. 
 
 The Journal of the General Conference of 1808 
 does not contain any order to have these changes 
 made ; but some one, with or without formal author- 
 ity, must have edited the several resolutions adopted 
 by the General Conference of that year; for the Dis- 
 cipline of 1808 gives a different arrangement from 
 that which would result from the chronological 
 order. 
 
 Though no mention is made in the Journal, it is 
 probable that there was an understanding that some 
 person or persons would group the several actions in 
 a more logical order. 
 
 The document appears in the Discipline of 1808 
 as Question 2, with answers under " Section 3, Of 
 
3G6 GOVERNING CONFERENCE: IN METHODISM. 
 
 the General and Yearly Conferences/' with the sub- 
 heading, " Of the General Conference/' as follows: 
 
 " Ques. 2. Who shall compose the General Conference, 
 and what are the regulations and powers belonging to it? 
 
 " Ans. 1. The General Conference shall be composed of 
 one member for every five members of each Annual Confer- 
 ence, to be appointed either by seniority or choice, at the 
 discretion of such Annual Conference ; yet so that such rep- 
 resentatives shall have traveled at least four full calendar years 
 from the time that they are received on trial by an Annual 
 Conference, and are in full connection at the time of holding 
 the Conference. 
 
 "2. The General Conference shall meet on the first day of 
 May, in the year of our Lord 1812, in the city of New York, 
 and thenceforward on the first day of May once in four years, 
 perpetually, in such place or places as shall be fixed on by the 
 General Conference from time to time. But the general su- 
 perintendents, with or by the advice of all the Annual Con- 
 ferences, or, if there be no general superintendent, all the 
 Annual Conferences respectively, shall have power to call a 
 General Conference, if they judge it necessary, at any time. 
 
 "3 At all times when the General Conferences meet, it 
 shall take two-thirds of the representatives of all the Annual 
 Conferences to make a quorum for transacting business. 
 
 " 4. One of the general superintendents shall preside in 
 the General Conference ; but in case no general superintend- 
 ent be present, the General Conference shall choose a presi- 
 dent j>ro iempore. 
 
 "5. The General Conference shall have full powers to 
 make rules and regu'ations for our Church, under the follow- 
 ing limitations and restrictions, viz. : 
 
 " 1. The General Conference shall not revoke, alter, or 
 change our Articles of Religion, nor establish any new stand- 
 ards or rules of doctrine contrary to our present existing and 
 established standards of doctrine. 
 
 " 2. They shall not allow of more than one representative 
 for every five members of the Annual Conference, nor allow 
 of a less number than one for every seven. 
 
THE DELEGATED GENERAL CONFERENCE. 367 
 
 " 3. They shall not change nor alter any part or rule of 
 our government, so as to do away episcopacy or destroy the 
 plan of our itinerant general superintendency. 
 
 "4. They shall not revoke or change the General Rules of 
 the United Societies. 
 
 "5. They shall not do away the privileges of our ministers 
 or preachers of trial by a committee, and of an appeal. 
 Neither shall they do away the privileges of our members of 
 trial before the society or by a committee, and of an appeal. 
 
 " 6. They shall not appropriate the produce of the Book 
 Concern, or of the Charter Fund, to any purpose other than 
 for the benefit of the traveling, supernumerary, superannu- 
 ated, and worn-out preachers, their wives, widows, and 
 children. 
 
 "Provided, nevertheless, that upon the joint recommenda- 
 tion of all the Annual Conferences, then a majority of two- 
 thirds of the General Conference succeeding shall suffice to 
 alter any of the above restrictions." 
 
 This shows that some editing was done. 
 
 The first answer contains a combination of three 
 resolutions, adopted at different times. The precise 
 sense is preserved, as is also the wording, ex- 
 cepting that the resolution, that "each Annual Con- 
 ference shall have the power of sending their propor- 
 tionate number of members to the General Conference, 
 either by seniority or choice, as they shall think best," 
 was changed to the words, " to be appointed by sen- 
 iority or choice, at the discretion of such Annual 
 Conference," which may be considered a better 
 phrasing, though the w r ord appoint may be open to 
 some criticism. 
 
 In the second is a blending of four distinct ac- 
 tions of the General Conference, with an insertion of 
 the phrase, " in the year of our Lord," which was in 
 the report of the committee of fourteen, and the word 
 
368 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 "thenceforward" which was evidently put in to make 
 the connection ; but, as far as can be learned from the 
 Journal, neither this word nor the phrase alluded to 
 had been adopted by the Conference. 
 
 The third that in reference to a quorum is 
 considerably varied from the wording of the act 
 of the General Conference, though the sense is pre- 
 served. The action of the Conference was as fol- 
 lows : " It shall take two-thirds of the representatives 
 of all the Annual Conferences to form a quorum for 
 business in the General Conference. " The form in 
 the Discipline of 1808 is: "At all times when the 
 General Conference is met, it shall take two-thirds of 
 all the representatives of all the Annual Conferences 
 to make a quorum for transacting business." This, 
 as will be seen, is almost the same as the report of 
 the committee of fourteen, which had these words : 
 "At all times when the General Conference is met, it 
 shall take two-thirds of the whole number of delegates 
 to form a quorum." 
 
 The fourth is slightly different from the action of 
 the General Conference in several particulars. In- 
 stead of " one of the superintendents shall preside," 
 as was passed by the General Conference, it has, "one 
 of the general superintendents shall preside." The 
 act of the General Conference had, " in case of the 
 absence of a superintendent, the Conference shall 
 elect a president pro tern.;" but the form put in the 
 Discipline of 1808 has, "in case no general superin- 
 tendent be present, the General Conference shall 
 choose a president pro tempore." 
 
THE DELEGATED GENERAL CONFERENCE. 369 
 
 Here again is seen a leaning toward the report of 
 the committee of fourteen, which used the title 
 "original superintendents" and "general superin- 
 tendent/' and the word " choose," instead of the 
 word "elect," which was the word adopted by the 
 General Conference. 
 
 In the fifth, on the powers of the General Con- 
 ference, the form in the Discipline of 1808 uses the 
 words " limitations and," which words were not in 
 the action of the General Conference, but which were 
 in the report of the committee of fourteen. 
 
 The first restriction is precisely as adopted by the 
 General Conference, and so is the second. The third, 
 referring to episcopacy, is the resolution of Jesse Lee, 
 adopted prior to the consideration of Stephen G. Ros- 
 zel's paper on the powers and restrictions of the Gen- 
 eral Conference, with a variation which may be 
 deemed of some importance. The form in the Dis- 
 cipline of 1808 begins, "They shall not change or 
 alter any part or rule," etc., " so as to do away epis- 
 copacy," etc.; but the form as agreed upon by the 
 Conference was, " The next General Conference shall 
 not change," etc. 
 
 It is possible, and even probable, that Mr. Roszel 
 had such a restriction in his list of limitations of 
 power, but that he dropped it out because Mr. Lee 
 had anticipated him. 
 
 As it was a restriction, there can be no objection 
 to its arrangement among the restrictions and its 
 being placed as third, which was the order in the re- 
 port of the committee of fourteen. It is, however, 
 
370 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 remarkable that the form in the Discipline of 1808 
 is not the exact wording of the act as passed by the 
 General Conference, but is precisely the same as the 
 report of the committee of fourteen, which was not 
 adopted by the Conference. Whether there is any 
 important legal difference in the form " The next 
 General Conference shall not" and "They shall 
 not," may be a question. The form " They shall 
 not " was used, no doubt, to harmonize with the 
 beginning of other restrictions. 
 
 The fifth restriction, as in the Discipline of 1808, 
 is the same as adopted by the Conference and the 
 same as reported by the committee. Bangs says 1 
 that the form adopted used the words " or by a select 
 number," in reference to the trial of a member, 
 whereas the words adopted by the Conference were 
 " or by a committee," which were the same as the 
 report of the committee, and as found in the Dis- 
 cipline of 1808. 
 
 The sixth restriction in the form as given in the 
 Discipline of 1808, in regard to the use of the profits 
 of the publishing-house and the income from the 
 Chartered Fund, is precisely the same as that adopted 
 by the Conference and as reported by the committee 
 of fourteen, as is also the provision for amendments. 
 Bangs, however, says the closing words were, " to 
 alter any of the above resolutions;" 2 but the Dis- 
 
 1 N. Bangs, D. D., History of Methodist Episcopal Church, Vol. II, 
 p. 233. 
 
 N. Bangs, D. D., History of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
 N. Y., 1853, 3d Ed., p. 233. 
 
THE DELEGATED GENERAL CONFERENCE. 371 
 
 cipline of 1808 uses the word "restrictions." The 
 same author, in introducing the action of the General 
 Conference of 1808, uses this language, after referring 
 to the rejection of the committee's report : " Further 
 consultation," " issued finally in the adoption, almost 
 unanimously, of the following regulations and limit- 
 ations." l 
 
 The Rev. Jesse Lee appears to have been very 
 much pleased with this new arrangement. Comment- 
 ing upon it, he says : 
 
 " Our Connection having spread very extensively, and the 
 number of our preachers being much larger than they were 
 formerly, it was thought best to make some new regulations 
 about our General Conferences in future, and the foregoing 
 regulations were agreed to, by which means each part of the 
 Connection would have a proportionable number of preachers 
 in the General Conference. The Baltimore and Philadelphia 
 Conferences will no longer include more than half the mem- 
 bers of the General Conference." 2 
 
 The Rev. Nathan Bangs, D. . D., who was a 
 minister at that time, and whose history was issued 
 in 1838, thus refers to this change in the General 
 Conference : 
 
 " The unanimity with which these restrictive regulations 
 were adopted by the Conference shows the deep sense which 
 was very generally felt of the propriety of limiting the powers 
 of the General Conference, so as to secure forever the essential 
 doctrines of Christianity from all encroachments, as well as 
 those rules of moral conduct, so succinctly and precisely em- 
 bodied in the General Rules, and also to prevent the appro- 
 priations of the available funds of the Church from being 
 
 iN. Bangs, D. D., History of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
 N. Y., 18-53, 3d Ed., p. 231. 
 
 Rev. Jesse Lee, History of the Methodists, 1810, pp. 349, 350. 
 
372 GOVERNING CONFERENCE: IN METHODISM. 
 
 diverted to other objects than those for which they had been 
 established. Call these rules, therefore, restrictive regulations, 
 or a constitution of the Church for we contend not about names 
 merely they have ever since been considered as sacredly 
 binding upon all succeeding General Conferences, limiting 
 them in all their legislative acts, and prohibiting them from 
 making inroads upon the doctrines, general rules, and govern- 
 ment of the Church. 
 
 " Before this, each General Conference felt itself at full 
 liberty, not being prohibited by any standing laws, to make 
 whatever alterations it; might see fit, or to introduce any new 
 doctrine or item of discipline which either fancy, inclination, 
 discretion, or indiscretion might dictate. 
 
 " Under this state of things, knowing the rage of man for 
 novelty, and witnessing the destructive changes which have 
 frequently laid waste churches, by removing ancient land- 
 marks, and so modifying doctrines and usages as to suit the 
 temper of the times, or to gratify either a corrupt taste or a 
 perverse disposition, many had felt uneasy apprehensions for 
 the safety and unity of the Church and the stability of its 
 doctrines, moral discipline, and the frame of its government ; 
 and none were more solicitous upon this subject than Bishop 
 Asbury, who had labored so long with an assiduity equaled 
 by few, if indeed any, and suffered so much for the propaga- 
 tion and establishing of these important points ; he therefore 
 greatly desired, before he should be called hence, to see them 
 fixed upon a permanent foundation. The lively satisfaction, 
 too, with which this act of the Conference was received 
 generally, both by ministers and people, abundantly proves 
 the wisdom which presided in that Council, which devised 
 these resolutions, and applauds the prudence and caution with 
 which they were so cordially adopted. And although the prog- 
 ress of events has dictated the expediency of some modifi- 
 cation in the iron-like bond of the proviso, yet time and ex- 
 perience have borne a faithful testimony to the salutary influ- 
 ence of the restrictions themselves on the peace and unity of 
 the Church." 1 
 
 iN. Bangs, D. D., History of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
 1853, 3d Ed., Vol. II, pp. 233, 234. 
 
THE DELEGATED GENERAL CONFERENCE. 373 
 
 Establishing the delegated General Conference 
 marks a new epoch in the development of Confer- 
 ence government in the Methodist Episcopal Church. 
 
 From personal government the Church has passed 
 to government by the Conference, and Conference 
 government has passed through three stages, first, 
 government in the body of the ministry in the An- 
 nual Conferences; second, government in the Quad- 
 rennial General Conference; and now, government in 
 the delegated Quadrennial General Conference. 
 
CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 THE NATURE AND POWER OP THE DELEGATED 
 GENERAL CONFERENCE. 
 
 T3ISHOP ASBURY'S reference to the General 
 JLJ Conference of 1808 is very meager. Under date 
 of May 6, 1808, he says : " Our General Conference 
 opened in peace. On Saturday one hundred and 
 twenty-nine members took their seats. The new 
 Church in Eutaw Street was opened on the Sabbath 
 day, and I gave a discourse on the occasion from 
 2 Cor. iii, 12. On the 26th the Conference rose. 
 We have done very little except making the rule for 
 representation hereafter; one member to the Gen- 
 eral Conference for every six members of the Annual 
 Conferences, and the electing dear Brother McKendree 
 assistant bishop ; the burden is now borne by two 
 pairs of shoulders instead of one, the care is cast upon 
 two hearts and heads." l 
 
 This note is singular in three respects : First, it 
 states that the General Conference did " very little 
 except making the rule for representation," whereas 
 it did an exceedingly important work in determining 
 the powers and limitation of powers in the delegated 
 General Conference ; secondly, he states that the ratio 
 was one delegate for six members of the Annual Con- 
 
 i Bishop Asbury's Journal, 1821, Vol. Ill, p. 243. 
 374 
 
ITS NATURK AND POWER. 375 
 
 ference, whereas the Conference decided on one for 
 five, but gave the delegated General Conference power 
 to fix the ratio within the limits of one in five to 
 one in seven ; and, thirdly, the entry is somewhat re- 
 markable in that it styles Bishop McKendree an " as- 
 sistant bishop/ 1 
 
 We leave these singular statements, and pass on to 
 notice the nature and power of this delegated Gen- 
 eral Conference. 
 
 To ascertain its nature and its powers, we must 
 refer to the instrument drawn up by the General Con- 
 ference of 1808, which at that time represented the 
 whole Church, and was the supreme governing body 
 of the Church. 
 
 That instrument, which has already been quoted, 
 appeared in the Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church in 1808, immediately after the Articles of Ke- 
 ligion, as Question Second and answer to said ques- 
 tion under the general heading : " Section III. Of 
 the General and Yearly Conferences." 
 
 This document is of the nature of a charter or 
 constitution created and granted by the creative and 
 superior authority. The General Conference of 1808, 
 representing the Church and exercising supreme 
 ecclesiastical control, created the delegated General 
 Conference, and in the written instrument to which 
 reference has been made, recited that which it deemed 
 necessary to bring into being and perpetuate the 
 delegated General Conference, and also indicated in 
 specific terms the scope of its power. 
 
 To ascertain, therefore, the nature and power of 
 
376 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 this new General Conference, we must consider the 
 document drawn up by the General Conference of 
 1808, and the whole matter resolves itself into a ques- 
 tion as to the interpretation of that instrument. 
 
 An examination of the instrument will show that, 
 as to the nature of the new General Conference, it 
 was to be, 
 
 First, a ministerial body. No one could be a mem- 
 ber who was not a minister in full membership in 
 an Annual Conference at the time of holding the Gen- 
 eral Conference, and who had not been a minister at 
 least four full calendar years from the time he had 
 been received on probation in an Annual Conference. 
 
 Secondly, it was to be a delegated body, and not, 
 as heretofore, with membership dependent merely upon 
 ministerial standing; but persons having that particular 
 ministerial status were to be selected or elected "either 
 by seniority or choice." That is to say, the Annual 
 Conference could decide whether it would select the 
 oldest preachers, or whether it would elect by vote 
 those who should be its representatives. Further, the 
 number of delegates from any Annual Conference 
 was to be in proportion to the number of members 
 in the said Annual Conference. 
 
 The adoption of the Constitution of 1808 changed 
 the status of the bishops in subsequent General Con- 
 ferences. None were to be members of the delegated 
 General Conference, but delegates elected by Annual 
 Conferences. As the bishops were not so elected, 
 they had not the rights of members on the floor, but 
 were, under the provisions of the Constitution, to 
 
ITS NATURE AND POWER. 377 
 
 act as presidents, with power to rule on points of 
 parliamentary law, but not to decide points of eccle- 
 siastical law; for the General Conference was to be 
 the interpreter as well as the maker of Church law. 
 This relation of the general superintendents to the 
 General Conference has been respected by bishops, 
 and jealously guarded by General Conferences, as the 
 records show. 1 
 
 Thirdly, it was to be a law-making body. It was 
 to have power "to make rules and regulations " for 
 the Church. This language covers the enactment of 
 laws and directions for carrying out these laws, and 
 also of any direction which might be deemed necessary 
 in the conduct of the Church. 
 
 In order that there might be no mistake as to the 
 scope of this power granted to the delegated General 
 Conference, the instrument specifically states that 
 " The General Conference shall have full powers to 
 make rules and regulations for our Church." 
 
 So that the whole law-making power was now 
 committed to the General Conference, and would no 
 longer be in the Annual Conferences or in the body of 
 the ministry, either in the separate yearly Confer- 
 ences or in the general ministry assemble*^ at one time 
 and in one place. If the document said no more, it 
 would be plain that the delegated General Conference 
 could do as it pleased in the matter of making "rules 
 and regulations;" but the new General Conference 
 was not so empowered. The body that created it 
 
 1 For example, see General Conference Journal of 1884, p. 263. 
 25 
 
378 GOVERNING CONFKRKNCE IN MKTUODISM. 
 
 and gave it the written instrument, as its authority 
 and its guide, inserted in the document a check 
 or a series of checks upon this power " to make 
 rules and regulations" by adding the words, "under 
 the following limitations and restrictions." 
 
 Then follow six paragraphs, which afterward 
 were commonly knows as " The Six Restrictive 
 Rules." These restrictions touch questions of doc- 
 trine, the ratio of representation, episcopacy, the " Gen- 
 eral Rules," the rights of ministers and members to 
 legal protection in their status as ministers or mem- 
 bers, and the use of the income from the publishing 
 interests and the " Chartered Fund ;" and then is 
 added a provision for amendment. 
 
 As to the matter of law-making, it is therefore 
 perfectly plain that the ne"w delegated General Con- 
 ference had full power to make all "rules and regu- 
 lations" that it thought might be requisite for the 
 proper conduct of the Church, excepting. where checked 
 by one or more of the specified limitations. In other 
 words, the General Conference had full power to 
 make any law or regulation which was not prohib- 
 ited by one or more of the "Restrictive Rules." 
 
 So Bishop Harris, in his little book on "The 
 Constitutional Powers of the General Conference," 
 says : 
 
 "It will be seen that the General Conference has, by ex- 
 press constitutional grant, power to make rules and regulations 
 for the Church, subject, however, to a code or body of articles, 
 six in number, which are called 'Restrictive Rules, or Articles. ' 
 In other words, the General Conference has legislative powers 
 
ITS NATURE AND POWER. 379 
 
 conferred on it by a constitution restricting and limiting its 
 powers'" l 
 
 Again the same author observes : 
 
 "The constitution of the Church differs essentially, in the 
 powers it delegates, from our State and Federal constitutions. 
 In these latter all powers not expressly granted to the Gov- 
 ernment are reserved to the people, or to the States, while in 
 the former all powers not expressly reserved or excepted are 
 delegated to the General Conference. It has been so held by 
 the highest judicial tribunal of the Church, 2 as well as by the 
 Supreme Court of the Nation. 3 The constitution gives to the 
 General Conference full powers to make rules and regulations 
 under defined limitations power to make all rules and regu- 
 lations pertinent to Church government, under specified re- 
 strictions, and under no other restrictions. There is not here 
 a delegation of enumerated powers accompanied by a general 
 reservation as in the case of the Federal Government, but a 
 delegation of general and sweeping powers under enumerated 
 and well defined restrictions. The whole power to rule and 
 regulate the Church is given to the General Conference by the 
 plain terms of the grant, and is to be held as restricted only in 
 those particulars in which it was designed not to delegate the 
 power. In what particulars it was designed not to delegate 
 the power must be determined by the terms of the consti- 
 tution. No limitations can be implied other than those as- 
 signed in the instrument itself." 4 
 
 The same writer further remarks, that 
 
 "The General Conference was at first composed of all the 
 preachers in good standing in the yearly Conferences. After- 
 ward membership was restricted to ministers who had been 
 
 1 Rev. Wm. L. Harris, D. D., The Constitutional Powers of the General 
 Conference, with a Special Application to the Subject of Slave- 
 holding, Cincinnati, IfcfiO, p. 20. 
 
 2 Reply to the Protest, Journal of General Conference of 1844, 
 pp. 203, 204. 
 
 3 Howard's Reports United States Supreme Court, Vol. XVI, p. 308. 
 <Rev. Wm. L. Harris, D. D., The Constitutional Powers of the Gen- 
 eral Conference, 1860, pp. 21-23. 
 
380 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 connected with the Annual Conferences four full calendar 
 years. The General Conference was thus constituted up to 
 and including the one held in Baltimore in 1808. No rule or 
 regulation passed by this body was unconstitutional, for the 
 very good reason that there was no constitution, in the sense of 
 that term as now understood and used by our Church author- 
 ities. Its powers to make rules and regulations for the Church 
 were undefined and unlimited. It had 'full powers' in all 
 matters pertinent to Church government, and was amenable 
 for its action to no earthly tribunal. 
 
 "The General Conference of 1808 provided, that thereafter 
 this supreme council of the Church should be composed of 
 delegates chosen by the Annual Conferences severally, accord- 
 ing to a given ratio of representation. The first delegated Gen- 
 eral Conference met in New York, in 1812. It was the legiti- 
 mate successor of the one of 1808, and it succeeded to all the 
 powers of its predecessors, except in so far as those powers 
 were pared down by the limiting terms of the constitution. 
 
 " To ascertain, therefore, the powers of the General Con- 
 ference in a given case, no search need be made for a specific 
 warrant for the particular rule which it is proposed to enact. 
 It is enough that the constitution does not forbid the rule ; 
 for the terms of the grant devolving legislative power upon 
 the General Conference are sufficiently comprehensive to au- 
 thorize the passage of any rule not clearly excepted by the 
 enumerated restrictions." 1 
 
 The phrase "rules and regulations" hardly needs 
 any explanation. It is so comprehensive that it 
 covers everything that a body possessing supreme leg- 
 islative, judicial, and executive powers can do. The 
 words " rule" and ft rules" were used in the Method- 
 ist Episcopal Church in 1808 and in the years pre- 
 ceding, as meaning " law " and " laws," and " regula- 
 tions" covered all directions which might be made to 
 carry forward the work of the Church ; and so, under 
 
 i Rev. Wm. L. Harris, D. D., The Constitutional Powers of the Gen- 
 eral Conference, 1860, pp. 23-25. 
 
ITS N"ATURE AND POWR. 381 
 
 the phrase "rules and regulations," every minister, 
 every member, every officer, every society, and every 
 Conference in the Church was brought under the di- 
 rect or indirect control of the General Conference 
 according to its pleasure, except as limited by the Re- 
 strictive Rules. 
 
 The same words are used in Article IV of the 
 Constitution of the United States, where, referring to 
 the power of Congress over the Territories, it says : 
 "The Congress shall have power to dispose of and 
 make all needful rules and regulations respecting the 
 Territory," etc.; and Chief Justice Story, comment- 
 ing on this clause of the Constitution, says : "The 
 power of Congress over the public territory is clearly 
 exclusive and universal, and their legislation is subject 
 to no control." l 
 
 In the same way the General Conference, under 
 the unlimited grant of power, would have exclusive 
 power and be subject to no control; but the "full 
 powers" are limited by the restrictions; yet, as long 
 as it does not trespass beyond the limits placed by the 
 restrictions, it has "full powers to make rules and 
 regulations " according to its wisdom or pleasure. 
 In other words, the power of the General Conference 
 was unlimited within certain limits. 
 
 Fourthly, the General Conference was to be, in a 
 secondary and limited sense, a constitution-making 
 body. Of itself it could not make or originate any 
 change in the constitution. The body of ministers, 
 as in the General Conference of 1808 and in the An- 
 
 i Story on the Constitution, Vol. II, p. 189. 
 
382 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 nual Conferences, reserved this initiative in the mat- 
 ter of constitution-making. 
 
 Thus, the constitution granted, the first delegated 
 General Conference closes with the following pro- 
 vision for amendment: "Provided, nevertheless, that 
 upon the joint recommendation of all the Annual 
 Conferences, then a majority of two-thirds of the 
 General Conference succeeding shall suffice to alter 
 any of the above restrictions." l 
 
 According to this, any or all of the restrictions 
 might be amended or stricken out, and then the 
 General Conference would be free to act as it might 
 desire, without any limitation. But the General 
 Conference alone could not free itself from the limi- 
 tations; and, as has been observed, could not even 
 take the first step toward the change. 
 
 The initiative had to be taken by the body of the 
 ministry prior to the assembling of a General Con- 
 ference; and that not by the body of the ministry 
 collected in the same place and at the same time, 
 but meeting in their several Annual Conferences, and 
 voting therein. 
 
 The proposed change must first pass around the 
 several Annual Conferences, where it must receive, 
 not a majority vote of all the members of all the 
 Annual Conferences or of all those present and 
 voting, but the recommendation of all the Annual 
 Conferences, and that by a majority vote in each 
 Annual Conference. Thus it might happen that 
 though a majority of the aggregate membership of 
 
 i Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 1808, p. 16. 
 
ITS NATURE AND POWER. 383 
 
 the Annual Conferences might fayor the change, yet 
 because there was not a majority in a single small 
 Conference, the change could not be made. 
 
 If, however, there was a majority vote in favor 
 in each Annual Conference, then the recommenda- 
 tion for some given change could be considered and 
 acted upon by the next succeeding General Confer- 
 ence. This gave the General Conference supple- 
 mentary and concurrent power in amending the 
 constitution; but it reserved to the body of the min- 
 istry in the several Annual Conferences the funda- 
 mental right of constitution -mending, as it had the 
 original right of constitution-making. 
 
 When the ministry in the Annual Conferences 
 had, according to the provision for amendment, ex- 
 pressed their desire for any specified change, then the 
 next succeeding General Conference must agree to 
 the change by a two-thirds vote before the change 
 could be made in the constitution. If the amend- 
 ment received less than a two-thirds vote, the prop- 
 osition fell just as certainly as though the Annual 
 Conferences themselves had refused to recommend. 
 
 Thus the constitution-mending and constitution- 
 making power was divided between the ministry in 
 the Annual Conferences and their delegates in Gen- 
 eral Conference assembled, but with the originating 
 power reserved to the Annual Conferences. 
 
 There can, therefore, be no doubt as to the 
 method to be used in removing or amending any of 
 the Six Restrictive Rules; but a question now arises 
 as to whether that method refers only to the part of 
 
384 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 the instrument technically known as "the Six Re- 
 strictive Rules," or whether this process of amend- 
 ment is necessary in making changes in any other 
 part of the document. In other words, could the 
 delegated General Conference, acting under the con- 
 stitution of 1808, change any other part of the in- 
 strument by its own act, without any reference to a 
 "joint recommendation of all the Annual Con- 
 ferences ?" 
 
 There is one part in the body of the document 
 which the General Conference appears to have the 
 right to change without waiting for a "joint recom- 
 mendation of all the Annual Conferences," and- that 
 is the item in the first paragraph, where it says "the 
 General Conference shall be composed of one mem- 
 ber for every five members of each Annual Confer- 
 ence;" for the Second Restrictive Rule established a 
 sliding scale of representation. It reads: "They 
 shall not allow of more than one representative for 
 every five members of the Annual Conference, nor 
 allow of a less number than one for every seven." 1 
 
 According to this the delegated General Confer- 
 ence of 1812 could have changed the ratio of repre- 
 sentation so that there might have been one delegate for 
 six or one for seven members, and might have changed 
 the language in the first paragraph so as to harmo- 
 nize, by striking out five and inserting six or seven, 
 without awaiting a new recommendation from the 
 Annual Conferences; but it will be seen that the 
 delegated General Conference had already been em- 
 
 i Discipline of 1808. 
 
ITS NATURE AND POWER. 385 
 
 powered to make these changes by the General Con- 
 ference of 1808, so that such change would not be the 
 act of the General Conference alone, for there had been 
 the previous consent of the body of the ministry. 
 
 Still the question arises, Can the General Confer- 
 ence, on its own motion, make any other change in 
 the body of the constitution ? In answer to this it 
 must be said that the instrument itself does not 
 specify any other change the General Conference may 
 make in the body of the constitution, and the natural 
 inference therefore would be that the General Con- 
 ference would not have the power unless the instru- 
 ment gave it such power in specific terms. 
 
 Something may depend upon the interpreta- 
 tion of the words "any of the above restric- 
 tions," in the provision for amendment, as to 
 whether the language covers only the Six Restrict- 
 ive Rules, so-called, or whether it covers the whole 
 document. 
 
 If the provision for amendment covers only the 
 above Restrictive Rules, then it might be held that 
 there is no provision for the amendment of the body 
 of the instrument, and, if that be the case, then it 
 follows that the body of the ministers in the General 
 Conference of 1808 did not transfer to the delegated 
 General Conference any power whatever to change 
 the body of the instrument, excepting in the one 
 minor part before mentioned; and it may be held 
 that, as the creating body did not give the created 
 body such power, the delegated General Conference 
 did not possess such power; for it had only such 
 
386 GOVERNING CONF^R^NCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 power as was given it by the General Conference 
 of 1808. 
 
 If, however, we interpret the provision for amend- 
 ment as applying to the whole instrument, then it 
 must again follow that the General Conference of 
 itself can not change the body of the Constitution 
 unless there was first "the joint recommendation of 
 all the Annual Conferences." 
 
 An analysis of the instrument of 1808 shows us 
 that the whole of it is of the nature of a charter or 
 constitution. It was all given by the then supreme 
 power, and the whole document was necessary to 
 bring into being and to perpetuate the delegated Gen- 
 eral Conference. The entire instrument, including 
 the statements as to the composition of the body, the 
 time and place of meeting, the presidency, the quorum, 
 and the calling of extra sessions, are as much parts of 
 the charter or constitution as the part which refers to 
 the power of the General Conference to make rules 
 and regulations or the restrictions upon these powers. 
 The delegated General Conference did not make the 
 body of the instrument any more than it made the Re- 
 strictive Rules; and it must follow that it has, to say 
 the least, no more power over the body of the consti- 
 tution than it has over the Restrictive Rules, unless the 
 instrument clearly gives it such power; and that it 
 does not confer such power is plain. 
 
 The delegated General Conference did not make 
 the instrument, but the instrument made it, and, on 
 general principles, the created can not make or un- 
 make the creator. 
 
ITS NATURK AND POWER. 387 
 
 If the whole instrument be of the nature of a 
 charter or constitution, it follows that the constitu- 
 tion of the General Conference can only be changed 
 by the power that made the constitution, or in the 
 way specified by that power. 
 
 It must, therefore, appear that the whole consti- 
 tution of 1808 was as thoroughly protected against 
 change by the General Conference alone as were the 
 Restrictive Rules; and certainly, if a subordinate part 
 of the constitution was guarded by the provision for 
 amendment, the more important body of the instru- 
 ment was at least as strongly defended. 
 
 If the General Conference could amend the body 
 of the constitution by striking out or inserting, or 
 otherwise without action on the part of the Annual 
 Conferences, it might destroy its presidency and its 
 quorum. It might decide to meet once in four hun- 
 dred years instead of " once in four years perpetually/ 7 
 and so practically destroy itself. These matters are 
 vital, and are under the control of the constitution- 
 making and constitution-mending power, and by the 
 instrument of 1808 that was divided between the 
 Annual Conferences and their delegates in the Gen- 
 eral Conference. 
 
 It appears, therefore, that the body of the 
 constitution can not be amended by the General 
 Conference alone, and that, under the provision of 
 1808, there was no easier way of amending the body 
 of the instrument than the process for amending a 
 Restrictive Rule ; namely, that it was necessary, first, 
 to have "the joint recommendation of all the Annual 
 
388 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 Conferences/' and then the concurrence of " a ma- 
 jority of two-thirds of the General Conference suc- 
 ceeding." 
 
 Thus we have seen that the delegated General 
 Conference, provided for by the act of the General 
 Conference of 1808, was to be a ministerial body 
 composed of a proportionate number of ministerial 
 delegates from the Annual Conference, that it was to 
 be the law-making body of the Church, that it was to 
 have a supplementary or concurrent share in the 
 constitution-making power, and that it was to exist 
 and act under a constitution of which no part could 
 be changed except by compliance with the process 
 laid down by the power that created the constitution, 
 and that this process required the recommendation of 
 all the Annual Conferences, and then the concurrence 
 of the General Conference. 
 
CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 CHANGES IN THE CONSTITUTION OF THE GENERAL 
 CONFERENCE FROM 1812 TO 1856. 
 
 / T V HE first delegated General Conference met in 
 A 1812, in pursuance of the action of the General 
 Conference of 1808. The Journal of the General Con- 
 ference of 1812 opens with the statement that "the del- 
 egated General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church in the United States of America assembled in 
 the city of New York, agreeably to a resolution of 
 the General Conference of 1808. Bishop Asbury 
 opened the Conference. Wm. M. Kennedy was ap- 
 pointed secretary pro tern. The forenoon was occu- 
 pied in calling for and reading the certificates of the 
 delegates from the several Annual Conferences." 1 
 
 On the afternoon of the first day the right of an 
 Annual Conference to elect reserve delegates was 
 considered. "A case was brought forward respecting 
 some of the delegates from New England. It seems 
 they elected three extra members, who were to succeed 
 and take place in case of the failure of any of the 
 first chosen delegates. The Conference took into 
 consideration the propriety of the principle, and, 
 after some debate, voted that this business should be 
 laid over till to-morrow." 2 
 
 1 General Conference Journals, Vol. I, p. 97. 2 Id., p. 98. 
 
 389 
 
390 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 The Journal for the next day informs us that " the 
 business concerning the delegates from the New 
 England Conference was resumed, and, after some 
 conversation, a motion was made : ' Are our brethren 
 from the New England Conference, Joel Winch 
 and Daniel Webb, entitled to their seats in this 
 Conference ?' Voted in favor of the motion, 56; 
 against, 22. They accordingly took their seats in the 
 places of John Brodhead and Elijah R. Sabin ;" ' and 
 so the principle of alternate delegates was established. 
 
 On May 5th the General Conference considered the 
 question of "rules and orders to govern the Confer- 
 ence," and especially the right of the body to resolve 
 itself into " the Committee of the Whole Conference," 
 and on the question, " Shall the Conference have power 
 to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole?" 
 the Conference decided, " by a large majority," that 
 it had such power. 2 
 
 The next day, on motion of S. G. Roszel, Bishop 
 McKendree's address was considered in Committee 
 of the Whole Conference, and "Freeborn Garrettson 
 was called to the chair." 3 
 
 On the afternoon of May 8th, " Jesse Lee moved 
 that the members of the next General Conference 
 come by seniority, and that the supernumerary and 
 superannuated preachers shall not be included among 
 the senior preachers; also that one for every six 
 members shall come to the next General Conference, 
 and, in case there are two or more preachers of equal 
 
 1 General Conference Journals, Vol. I, pp. 98, 99. 
 
 2 Id., p. 100. sjd., p. 101. 
 
CHANGES IN THE CONSTITUTION. 391 
 
 standing, then the first named shall have the prefer- 
 ence. And in case any one of the above preachers 
 shall fail, by sickness or otherwise, to attend the 
 General Conference, then the next senior preacher 
 shall come in his place. Postponed till Wednesday 
 next." ' 
 
 The final action on this proposition is as follows: 
 " Then the question was taken on the first para- 
 graph : ' I move that the members of the next Gen- 
 eral Conference come by seniority/ Lost. The sec- 
 ond paragraph : ' That one for every six members 
 shall come to the next General Conference.' Lost." 2 
 So the first attempt to amend the plan of 1808 failed. 
 
 Lee's motion, however, was not an amendment to 
 the constitution. The first part was rather in the 
 line of interpretation, or an expression of judgment. 
 The change of ratio to one in six was permitted by the 
 constitution. The latter part of the resolution was 
 an attempt to provide a class of reserve delegates. 
 
 As already noted, there was one change the Gen- 
 eral Conference was permitted to make ; namely, the 
 fixing the ratio of representation at or between the 
 limits of one for five to one for seven. 
 
 The first recorded change in the chapter on the 
 General Conference was made in 1816, when the 
 General Conference changed the ratio to one in 
 seven, by adopting the following: 
 
 " Resolved. That the next General Conference shall be 
 composed of one member for every seven, instead of one for 
 every six of each Annual Conference." 3 
 
 i Gen. Con. Journals, Vol. I, p. 105. 2 Id., p. 111. Id., p. 137. 
 
392 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 This appears to imply that in 1816 the ratio of 
 representation was one in six, though we fail to find 
 a record of such a change. 
 
 As we have seen, this change to one for every 
 seven members was within the powers granted to the 
 delegated General Conference by the General Confer- 
 ence of 1808, which had adopted a sliding scale of one 
 in five to one in seven. In 1828 a slight change 
 was made in the Sixth Restrictive Rule by substitut- 
 ing the word " nor " for the word " or," so as to make 
 it read " shall not appropriate the produce of the 
 Book Concern nor of the Charter Fund." 
 
 This may have been done to prevent the possi- 
 bility of people supposing that the Book Concern and 
 Charter Fund were two titles for the same thing. 
 
 There is no evidence, however, in the Journal of 
 the General Conference that this change was author- 
 ized or formally agreed to by that body. Certainly 
 it was not submitted to the Annual Conferences. It 
 was probably purely a matter of editing; but the 
 question may be raised as to whether an editor, or 
 even the General Conference, had any right to change 
 any considerable part or even a single expression in 
 the constitution prepared by the General Conference 
 of 1808. 
 
 To this there is only one answer; namely, that 
 the General Conference, much less an editor, had 
 no right to change a word or phrase except as the 
 constitution provided. 
 
 After the General Conference of 1824, an effort was 
 made to reduce the ratio of representation ; but it failed. 
 
CHANGES IN THE CONSTITUTION. 393 
 
 Bangs says : " A recommendation bad been sent 
 the rounds of the Annual Conferences, requesting 
 them to empower the General Conference of 1828 to 
 diminish the number of delegates. This recommen- 
 dation passed all the Annual Conferences except the 
 Philadelphia, and as it required all the Conferences 
 to concur before the alteration could be made by the 
 General Conference, the measure was defeated by the 
 non-concurrence of this single Annual Conference/ 71 
 The pressure, however, led to subsequent action. 
 
 * In the General Conference of 1828, Wilbur Fisk, 
 on the 15th of May, offered the following reso- 
 lutions, viz. : 
 
 "Resolved, etc., 1. That this General Conference respect- 
 fully suggest to the several Annual Conferences the propriety 
 of recommending to the next General Conference so to alter 
 and amend the rules of our Discipline, by which the General 
 Conference is restricted and limited in its legislative powers, 
 commonly called the Restrictive Rules, number six, as to read 
 thus: Provided, nevertheless, that upon the joint recommen- 
 dation of three-fourths of all the Annual Conferences, then a 
 majority of two-thirds of the General Conference succeeding 
 shall suffice to alter any of the above restrictions ; or, when- 
 ever such alterations shall have been first recommended by 
 two-thirds of the General Conference, then, so soon as three- 
 fourths of said Annual Conferences shall have concurred with 
 such recommendations, such alteration or alterations shall 
 take effect. 
 
 " Resolved, etc., 2. That it is hereby made the duty of the 
 several bishops in their tours to the different Annual Confer- 
 ences, to carry around and lay before any such Annual Con- 
 ference which they may visit respectively any address or reso- 
 lution, or other papers of a decent character, which this 
 
 1 Nathan Bangs, D. D., History of the Methodist Episcopal Church; 
 1867, Vol. IV, p. 103, 
 
 26 
 
394 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 General Conference or any Annual Conference may request 
 them so to carry around to obtain the opinion or decision of 
 said Annual Conferences thereon. Signed, Wilbur Fisk, 
 Joseph A. Merrill." 
 
 " These resolutions were, on motion, laid on the 
 table." l 
 
 On the 21st of May (1828), and on motion of 
 William Winans, Wilbur Fisk's resolution was 
 " called up." 2 
 
 "L. McCombs moved to amend the resolution by strik- 
 ing out the word ' joint,' and insert the word ' concurrent,' 
 and the motion was lost." 3 
 
 " A division of the motion was called for. The first part 
 of the resolution was adopted, to wit: 'That this General 
 Conference respectfully suggest to the several Annual Confer- 
 ences the propriety of recommending to the next General 
 Conference so to alter and amend the rules of our Discipline, 
 by which the General Conference is restricted and limited in 
 its powers to make rules and regulations for our Church, com- 
 monly called the Restrictive Rules, so as to make the proviso 
 at the close of said Restrictive Rules, No. 6, read thus : Provided, 
 nevertheless, that upon the joint recommendations of three- 
 fourths of all the Annual Conferences, then a majority of two- 
 thirds of the General Conference succeeding shall suffice to 
 alter any of the above restrictions except the first ' Article.' " 
 
 It will be seen that this was really a substitute 
 for the first part of Dr. Fisk's first resolution. Fisk 
 used the words, "its legislative powers;" this substi- 
 tutes the words, " its powers to make rules and regu- 
 lations for our Church," an evident attempt to re- 
 peat and preserve the language of the paragraph on 
 the powers of the General Conference, which gives it- 
 more than mere " legislative powers." 
 
 i General Conference Journals, Vol. I, pp. 331-332. 
 Jd., p. 346. *lbid. 
 
CHANGES IN THE CONSTITUTION. 395 
 
 There are other slight differences of phraseol- 
 ogy, but the most important change is the addition 
 of the words, "except the first 'Article/" which no 
 doubt means the First Restrictive Rule, limiting the 
 power as to change of doctrine. 
 
 "The motion by which this part of the resolution 
 was adopted, was, on motion of R. Bigelow recon- 
 sidered. It was then resolved, on motion, that the 
 resolution be referred to a select committee of three 
 members." l 
 
 On May 22, 1828, "W. Fisk, from the commit- 
 tee to which had been referred the subject of recom- 
 mending to the Annual Conferences some alterations 
 in the Restrictive Rules, reported." 2 
 
 "A division of the above report was called for, 
 and the question being taken on the first part, it was 
 carried. 
 
 "The vote was taken on the second and last part; 
 carried, also." 3 
 
 The following is the report as adopted : " The 
 committee to whom was referred the subject em- 
 braced in a resolution suggesting the propriety of 
 providing for the alteration of one of the rules com- 
 monly called the Restrictive Rules, beg leave to re- 
 port the following resolution: 
 
 " Resolved, That this General Conference respectfully sug- 
 gest to the several Annual Conferences the propriety of recom- 
 mending to the next General Conference so to alter and amend 
 the rules of our Discipline, by which the General Conference 
 is restricted in its powers to make rules and regulations for 
 
 1 General Conference Journals, Vol. I, p. 346. 
 
 2 Id., p. 353. Ibid, 
 
396 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 the Church, commonly called the Restrictive Rules, as to make 
 the proviso at the close of said Restrictive Rules, No. 6, read 
 thus : 
 
 "Provided, nevertheless, that upon the concurrent recom- 
 mendation of three-fourths of all the members of the several 
 Annual Conferences who shall be present and vote on such rec- 
 ommendation, then a majority of two thirds of the General Con- 
 ference succeeding shall suffice to alter any of such regula- 
 tions, excepting the First Article. 
 
 " And, also, whenever such alteration or alterations shall 
 have first been recommended by two-thirds of the General 
 Conference, so soon as three-fourths of the members of the 
 Annual Conferences shall have concurred, as aforesaid, with 
 such recommendation, such alteration or alterations shall take 
 effect. 
 
 " All of which is respectfully submitted. 
 
 "W. FISK, Chairman." 1 
 
 It will be seen that the word " limited," which 
 appears in the resolution adopted (May 21st) and com- 
 mitted, and also in Dr. Fisk's paper, was stricken 
 out from the phrase, " restricted and limited " prob- 
 ably on the ground that it was tautological and un- 
 necessary. 
 
 The phrase "so as/ 7 which appears in the resolu- 
 tion which had been adopted, and then reconsidered 
 and referred, was made to read " as," which was the 
 form in Dr. Fisk's resolution. 
 
 The phrase, "the above restrictions," which ap- 
 peared in Dr. Fisk's paper and the resolution which 
 had been reconsidered, was stricken out, and the 
 words, " such regulations," were inserted. 
 
 "Excepting" was substituted for "except." 
 
 But the most important change was the insertion 
 
 i General Conference Journals, Vol. I, pp. 353, 354. 
 
CHANGES IN THE CONSTITUTION. 397 
 
 of the words, "the members of." The wording had 
 been, "three-fourths of all the Annual Conferences." 
 This insertion made it read, "three-fourths of all the 
 members of the several Annual Conferences." This 
 was proposing a new principle; for the proviso in 
 the Discipline read, and had read since 1808, "upon 
 the joint recommendation of all the Annual Confer- 
 ences." 
 
 Under the original proviso it required a majority 
 vote in each and all the several Annual Conferences; 
 but this proposition was to put the power in the hands 
 of the aggregate membership of the Annual Con- 
 ferences. 
 
 In order that it might not be supposed to require 
 three-fourths of all the members, whether present or 
 not, or who did or did not vote, there were added the 
 words, "who shall be present and vote on such rec- 
 ommendation." 
 
 Then the second part was made to begin with the 
 words, "and also," instead of "or," as Dr. Fisk had 
 originally proposed. 
 
 "Have been first" was changed to "have first 
 been." The aggregate vote of the ministers was also 
 incorporated by inserting the words, "three-fourths 
 of the members of the Annual Conferences shall have 
 concurred, as aforesaid." The singular, "recommen- 
 dation," was also substituted for " recommendations," 
 as in Dr. Fisk's original resolution. 
 
 This " second part," as it was termed, was also a 
 new and important proposition. Up to this time 
 every change in the restrictions had to originate with 
 
398 GOVERNING CON ^KR^NCH IN METHODISM. 
 
 the Annual Conferences, and by them be sent to the 
 General Conference for concurrence. This new prop- 
 osition was intended to permit the General Conference 
 to take the initiative; and as soon as "three-fourths 
 of all the members of the several Annual Conferences 
 who shall be present and vote on such recommenda- 
 tion " concur, the change would be made. 
 
 The new proposition was also remarkable in 
 another particular; namely, the effort to make it ex- 
 ceedingly difficult to change the First Restrictive 
 Rule, which refers to the Articles of Religion, or doc- 
 trines of the Church. 
 
 The resolution directing the bishops to submit 
 measures to the several Annual Conferences, appears 
 to have been dropped. 
 
 Thus the General Conference of 1828 suggested to 
 the several Annual Conferences the propriety of rec- 
 ommending to the next General Conference an amend- 
 ment to the proviso in regard to making changes in 
 the restrictions. As decided by the General Confer- 
 ence of 1808, the proposition for change had to orig- 
 inate in the Annual Conferences. The proposed amend- 
 ment, however, would permit it to originate either in 
 the General or Annual Conferences. The act of 1808 
 required the agreement of all the Annual Conferences; 
 but the new proposition would require a three-fourths 
 vote of all the members of the Annual Conferences 
 present and voting. If adopted, the Annual Confer- 
 ence would cease to be a unit of power, and the power 
 would be placed in the aggregate membership of all 
 the Annual Conferences. 
 
CHANGES IN THE CONSTITUTION. 399 
 
 The proposed change in the provision for amend- 
 ments to the constitution was submitted to the several 
 Annual Conferences after the adjournment of the 
 General Conference of 1828, and the matter again 
 came up in the General Conference of 1832. 
 
 The Journal of this Conference opens with the 
 declaration that a at a General Conference of the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States of 
 America, began and held in the city of Philadelphia, 
 on Tuesday, May 1, 1832, the Rev. Joshua Soule and 
 the Rev. Elijah Hedding, two of the bishops of said 
 Church, being present, Bishop Soule opened the 
 Conference by reading a portion of the Holy Scrip- 
 tures, singing, and prayer." 1 
 
 On the first day of the session of the General 
 Conference of 1832 it was, on motion of John 
 Ear ley, 
 
 "Resolved, That a committee of five members be ap- 
 pointed, to be denominated 'The Committee on Privileges 
 and Elections,' to whom shall be referred all matters relating 
 to the election of members to this General Conference, to ex- 
 amine and report thereon." 2 
 
 On Saturday, May 12th, the above committee re- 
 ported as follows : 
 
 " The Committee on Elections beg leave to report, that 
 whereas there has not been anything particularly referred to 
 them, that they have barely inquired into the legality of the 
 delegation composing this General Conference, and find noth- 
 ing incorrect. Your committee find, however, that some of 
 the Annual Conferences have been, and still are, in the habit 
 of choosing supernumeraries, or delegates in reserve, so as to 
 
 1 General Conference Journals, Vol. I, p. 301. 2 Id., p. 364. 
 
400 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 have their proper ratio; but as usage has established the 
 principle, we do not deem it expedient to make any rule on 
 the subject." 
 
 "And, on motion, the Conference concurred 
 therein." l 
 
 On the 7th of May the Committee on Itinerancy 
 reported the result of the vote in the several Annual 
 Conferences upon the Amendment to the Consti- 
 tution, submitted by the previous General Confer- 
 ence of 1828. 
 
 The Journal of the General Conference of 1832 
 has the following account : 
 
 " The Committee on Itinerancy reported that, on exam- 
 ination of the Journals of all the Annual Conferences respect- 
 ing the alteration of the restrictive regulations, as recom- 
 mended by the General Conference of 1828, we find that the 
 subject was taken up by the New York Annual Conference, 
 and concurred in by seventy-two votes against two once 
 resolutions were passed inviting the several Annual Confer- 
 ences to concur in the same which resolutions have passed 
 all the Annual Conferences in full and due form, with the 
 exception of the Illinois, where we find some want in the for- 
 mality ; not sufficient, however, in the judgment of your com- 
 mittee, to alter or set aside the principle. And we have the 
 assurance of the delegates from that Conference that the in- 
 formality arose from the want of information, and not with 
 any intention to embarrass the true design of the said resolu- 
 tion. Your committee therefore offer the following resolution 
 to the Conference, viz. : 
 
 " Resolved, by the delegates of the Annual Conferences in 
 General Conference assembled, That the proviso at the close 
 of the article numbered six of the Restrictive Kules 
 (see Discipline, chapter i, section 3, page 21) be altered so 
 as to read: 'Provided, nevertheless, that upon the con- 
 current recommendation of three-fourths of all the rnein- 
 
 i General Conference Journals, Vol. I, p. 386. 
 
CHANGES IN THE CONSTITUTION. 401 
 
 bers of the several Annual Conferences, who shall be present 
 and vote on such recommendation, then a majority of two- 
 thirds of the General Conference succeeding shall suffice to 
 alter any of the above restrictions, excepting the first article ; 
 and also, whenever such alteration or alterations shall have 
 been first recommended by two-thirds of the General Confer- 
 ence, so soon as three-fourths of the members of all the An- 
 nual Conferences shall have concurred as aforesaid, such 
 alteration or alterations shall take effect.' Signed, L. Clark, 
 Chairman." 1 
 
 This was made the order of the day for Wednes- 
 day, the 9th of May. 2 
 
 The report did not get before the house on the 
 9th, but was considered on the 10th of May. 
 
 The Journal informs us that "the report of the 
 Committee on the Itinerancy, presented on Monday 
 morning last and laid on the table, was called up and 
 read, after which the delegates from Illinois gave the 
 following assurance in writing, viz.: 
 
 " We, the delegates from the Illinois Annual Conference, 
 do hereby certify that we all do cordially concur in the above 
 assurance. SAMUEL H. THOMPSON, 
 
 C. W. RUTER, 
 JAMES ARMSTRONG, 
 ALLEN WILEY, 
 GEORGE LOCK, 
 WILLIAM SHANK, 
 THOMAS S. HITT." 
 
 "The Conference then proceeded to act upon the 
 report, and, on putting the question, the preamble 
 was adopted unanimously. The first resolution (the 
 one in question) was adopted unanimously." 3 
 
 1 General Conference Journals, Vol. I, pp. 377, 378. * /</., p. 378. 
 8 General Conference Journals, Vol. I, pp. 382, 383. 
 
402 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 The Journal of the General Conference of 1832 
 does not throw any light upon the asserted infor- 
 mality in the case of the Illinois Conference. If it 
 was a fact that the Illinois Conference agreed to the 
 change, and the informality did not neutralize that 
 agreement, and if all the other Annual Conferences 
 had agreed to the amendment, as the committee de- 
 clared, then it was regularly before the General Con- 
 ference for its concurrence by a two-thirds vote. If, 
 however, the Illinois Conference had not agreed, the 
 proposition had not, as the law required, received 
 "the joint recommendation of all the Annual Con- 
 ferences/ 7 and was not regularly before the General 
 Conference. 
 
 But we must keep in mind the fact that the com- 
 mittee pronounces " the informality not sufficient to 
 alter or set aside the principle/' and that the com- 
 mittee of the General Conference and the delegates 
 from the Illinois Conference declared " the infor- 
 mality rose from the want of information," and not 
 from " any intention to embarrass the true design of 
 the said resolution." 
 
 But a remarkable fact in this connection is the dec- 
 laration of the present secretary of the Illinois Con- 
 ference that the Journal of that Conference does not 
 show that the Illinois Conference took any action 
 whatsoever upon the proposed amendment to the 
 constitution. 
 
 In order to ascertain the nature of the infor- 
 mality in the action of the Illinois Conference upon 
 this amendment, the author communicated with the 
 
CHANGES IN THE CONSTITUTION. 403 
 
 Rev. Christian Galeener, the secretary of the above 
 Conference, and requested him to examine the Journal. 
 The secretary, under date of January 9, 1891, an- 
 swered as follows: "After a careful scrutiny of the 
 Journals of the Illinois Conference, I am convinced 
 that no such action as that to which you refer was 
 ever journalized." 
 
 The records of the Illinois Conference therefore 
 afford no proof that the Conference ever voted on 
 this change in the constitution. If the Illinois Con- 
 ference had not agreed to the proposed change, then 
 the General Conference of 1832 had no right to adopt 
 the amendment and insert the new provision in the 
 constitution, but the fact that there is no record of 
 action in the Illinois Conference is not conclusive 
 proof that there was no action, for the secretary 
 might have unintentionally omitted the mention. 
 This may be considered improbable, and yet we must 
 give weight to the declaration of the delegates from 
 the Illinois Conference in the General Conference of 
 1832, and to the statement of the committee which 
 reported upon the matter. They understood the facts 
 better than we can at this distant day. If, however, 
 any taint of illegality existed at that time, it may be 
 considered as having passed away, as there is no record 
 of any exception having been taken at that time, 
 and no objection has been filed since that date, a 
 period of nearly sixty years. 
 
 A careful comparison will show that the proviso 
 as presented in the committee's report is not pre- 
 cisely the same as the one passed by the General Con- 
 
404 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 ference of 1828 as a recommendation to the Annual 
 Conferences. The proviso in the committee's report 
 has the words "any of the above restrictions;" 
 whereas that agreed to by the General Conference of 
 1828 had "any of such regulations." In the second 
 part the committee's proviso has a three-fourths of 
 the members of all the Annual Conferences/' but the 
 word "all" was not in the proviso agreed upon in 
 1828. The committee has "shall have concurred as 
 aforesaid, such alteration or alterations shall take 
 effect/' while the General Conference of 1828 had 
 " shall have concurred, as aforesaid, with such recom- 
 mendation, such alteration or alterations shall take 
 effect." 
 
 The introduction of the word "all" was an im- 
 provement, as it gave the part greater clearness, but 
 the substitution of the words " any of the above re- 
 strictions" for "any of such regulations," might be 
 supposed by some to limit amendment merely to 
 what are called the Restrictive Rules, while the other 
 phrase might be construed as intended to coverall the 
 regulations for the General Conference that had been 
 decided upon by the General Conference of 1808. 
 But as we have already seen, even the word " restric- 
 tions" must be construed as covering the entire in- 
 strument. 
 
 The minor changes to which we have referred are 
 more interesting than material in a legal sense or as 
 matters of practical value ; for the important question 
 is not what the General Conference of 1828 sug- 
 gested, but upon what the Annual Conferences voted, 
 
CHANGES IN THK CONSTITUTION. 405 
 
 and what the General Conference of 1832 concurred 
 in; and we must conclude that the form as reported 
 by the committee, and adopted unanimously by the 
 General Conference of 1832, was the form voted upon 
 by the Annual Conferences. Yet it may be asked, 
 who presumed to alter the proposition of 1828, even 
 in the slightest particular ? 
 
 The effect of the vote in the Annual Conferences, 
 and the concurrence of the General Conference, was to 
 substitute the new provision for amendments to the 
 constitution for the one which had stood since 1808, a 
 period of twenty-four years. 
 
 The new proviso, as in the report of the above 
 committee and in the Discipline of 1832, allowed an 
 amendment to be passed by the General Conference 
 and then concurred in by the members of the Annual 
 Conferences, or it might originate in an Annual Con- 
 ference, be passed from Conference to Conference, 
 and be agreed to by three-fourths of those voting in 
 the Annual Conferences, and then be passed by a two- 
 thirds majority in the next General Conference. 
 Either course might be pursued in amending the con- 
 stitution. 
 
 There was, however, as we have seen, one excep- 
 tion, and that was in relation to the first Restrictive 
 Rule. 
 
 The insertion of the words "excepting the first 
 article," made it impossible by the above process to 
 change the Restrictive Rule in regard to the doctrines 
 of the Church. In other words, it was impossible 
 for a single General Conference, even with the agree- 
 
406 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 ment of the ministry in the Annual Conferences to 
 amend the First Restrictive Rule. Consequently some 
 have inferred that there is no way of changing the 
 Restrictive Rule as to standards of doctrine. This, 
 however, is a mistake. 
 
 By the constitution of 1808, the Annual Confer- 
 ences and the next succeeding General Conference 
 could amend or eliminate the First Restrictive Rule or 
 any other restriction. By the provision of 1832, the 
 first rule was excepted from the process by which 
 the other regulations could be amended ; but this did 
 not make it absolutely impossible to change the re- 
 striction as to standards of doctrine. The inten- 
 tion of the makers of the new provision was to pro- 
 tect the doctrines from hasty change by making the 
 process of amendment more lengthy and difficult than 
 in the case of the other restrictions. 
 
 The new provision for amendment created a 
 double process. First, it would be necessary to 
 amend the provision for amendment by striking out 
 the words "excepting the first article." This, ac- 
 cording to the constitution, could be done by the 
 action of the ministers in the Annual Conferences 
 and the concurrence of the next General Conference, 
 or by the action of two-thirds in the General Con- 
 ference and the concurrence of three-fourths in the 
 Annual Conferences. If this was agreed to, then 
 the first restriction would no longer be an exception, 
 and it could be amended just as any other restriction. 
 
 In this way it might be possible to change the 
 restriction as to standards of doctrine within the 
 
CHANGES IN THE CONSTITUTION. 407 
 
 period of two General Conferences, or four years. 
 Thus a General Conference might recommend the 
 striking out of the words "excepting the first article," 
 and the ministers in the Annual Conferences the next 
 year might concur. This being done, the words 
 would be eliminated. Then the next year an amend- 
 ment to the first Restrictive Rule might be passed 
 around the Annual Conferences, and agreed to by 
 the requisite three-fourths vote, and if the next 
 General Conference concurred by a two-thirds vote, 
 the amendment would be effected. 
 
 The new provision, as already seen, permitted the 
 General Conference to originate and vote upon an 
 amendment to the constitution before the amendment 
 was passed upon by the ministry in the Annual Con- 
 ferences. This allowed the General Conference to 
 originate and vote upon a change before the amend- 
 ment was submitted to the members of the Annual 
 Conferences. 
 
 The Committee on Itinerancy anticipated this 
 right, and, on May 7th, in connection with the report 
 already referred to, submitted the following : 
 
 " Resolved, That the article number two in the Restrictive 
 Rules be so altered as to read, ' They shall not allow of more 
 than one representative for every fourteen members of the 
 Annual Conference, nor allow of a less number than one for 
 every thirty.' Signed, L. Clark, Chairman." * 
 
 This was called the second resolution of the com- 
 mittee. It was made the order of the day for the 
 9th, but was not reached until the 10th of May. 
 
 i General Conference Journals, Vol. I, p. 378. 
 
408 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 The record is as follows : " On considering the 
 second resolution, it was moved and carried that it be 
 recommitted to the committee, with instructions 
 which were given by some of the preachers verbally, 
 to consider and report." l 
 
 The next day the committee reported, " On tak- 
 ing the question upon the first resolution, a division 
 of the subject was called for. The question was 
 then taken on the first part as far as the proviso, and 
 carried unanimously." 
 
 This refers to the ratio of representation making 
 it not more than one for fourteen, and not less than 
 one for thirty. The Journal does not give the " pro- 
 viso " as reported by the committee, but merely says : 
 " The question on the proviso was then taken ; yeas, 
 one hundred and twenty-two; nays, seventy-two ; con- 
 sequently, as there was not a majority of two-thirds 
 in the affirmative, the question on the proviso was 
 lost." 2 W. Fisk then moved to amend the report by 
 inserting the following resolution, viz. : 
 
 " Resolved, That in any case where there is a fraction of 
 two-thirds of the number fixed on, according to the rules for 
 the ratio of delegation, then, and in every such case, the Con- 
 ference having such fraction shall be entitled to a delegate for 
 such fraction ; provided, however, that no Conference shall be 
 denied the privilege of one delegate for such fraction." 
 
 " It was moved and seconded to amend this reso- 
 lution by striking out the word ' one/ and inserting 
 ' two.' Carried. 
 
 " When the question on the resolution as amended 
 
 i General Conference Journals, Vol. I, p. 383. Id., 385. 
 
CHANGES IN THE CONSTITUTION. 409 
 
 was called for, and before the question was put, 
 L. Clark moved to strike out that part of the reso- 
 lution relating to the fraction, which motion was sub- 
 sequently withdrawn, and the question was put on the 
 resolution as amended, and carried by a majority of 
 considerably more than two-thirds. The second reso- 
 lution in the report was then called up. The ques- 
 tion was put on it as far as the proviso, and carried." l 
 
 On May 11, 1832, the report of the Committee on 
 Itinerancy on the ratio of representation was con- 
 sidered "as far as the proviso," and at that point the 
 Conference adjourned. On Tuesday, May 22d, " the 
 report of the Committee on Itinerancy was called up." 
 " S. K. Hodges moved to reconsider the vote by 
 which a fraction of two-thirds should be entitled to a 
 representative. Lost." 2 
 
 " The second resolution in the report was then 
 taken up. It was moved to amend it by striking out 
 the part relating to fractions. Lost. The question on 
 the adoption of the resolution was then taken. Car- 
 ried 178 to 3." 3 
 
 This looks a little confused; but the fact is that 
 Wilbur Fisk's motion was an amendment to the re- 
 port, and the resolution as amended does not appear to 
 have been agreed to. Hence the motion to recon- 
 sider related to the amendment, while the motion to 
 strike out referred to the resolution as amended. 
 Still, it seems a little indefinite. 
 
 " The third resolution was then read and adopted. 
 
 i General Conference Journals, Vol. I, p. 385. a Id., p. 401. 
 Journal, 1832, p. 402. 
 
 27 
 
410 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 " The fourth resolution was read and adopted. 
 " The whole report, as amended, was then adopted 
 by a unanimous vote." 1 
 
 The report as adopted is as follows : 
 
 " Resolved, 1. That this General Conference recommend to 
 the several Annual Conferences, for their concurrence and 
 adoption, as provided in the Sixth Article of the Restrictive 
 Rules, the following resolution to amend the Second Article 
 of the said Restrictive Rules : 
 
 " Resolved, 2. That the Second Article of the Restrictive 
 Rules be so altered as to read : ' They shall not allow of more 
 than one representative for every fourteen members of the 
 Annual Conference, nor allow of a less number than one for 
 every thirty ; provided, nevertheless, that when there shall be, 
 in any Annual Conference, a fraction of two-thirds of the 
 number which shall be fixed for the ratio of representation, 2 
 such Annual Conference shall be entitled to an additional 
 delegate for such fraction ; and provided, also, that no Confer- 
 ^hce shall be deprived of the privilege of two delegates. 
 
 " Resolved, 3. That the secretary furnish each of the bishops 
 with a copy of those resolutions, and they are hereby respect- 
 fully requested to present the same to their several Annual 
 Conferences, or cause them to be presented, at their next ses- 
 sion for their concurrence ; and when the bishops, or any two 
 of the bishops, shall have ascertained that three-fourths of all 
 the members of the several Annual Conferences, voting in the 
 case, have concurred with this General Conference, they shall 
 certify the same, and cause such certificate to be printed in 
 the Minutes, and published three successive weeks in the 
 Christian Advocate and Journal. 
 
 " Resolved, 4. That the ratio of representation for the next 
 General Conference be one for every fourteen ; provided the 
 Annual Conferences concur in the alteration as above recom- 
 mended by this Conference, and that the Discipline, in section 
 three, answer one, to question two, on page nineteen, shall 
 
 i General Conference Journals, Vol. I, p. 402. 
 
 a In Fisk's amendment the words were, " ratio of delegation." 
 
CHANGES IN THE CONSTITUTION. 411 
 
 thereupon be so altered as to read : ' The General Conference 
 shall be composed of one member for every fourteen members 
 of each Annual Conference,' etc." l 
 
 These amendments were agreed to, and the Disci- 
 pline issued in 1836 showed the changes thus made, 
 in harmony with the second resolution. This not 
 only changed the limits of the sliding scale, but also 
 introduced a new feature, namely, fractional repre- 
 sentation. 
 
 On Friday aftsrnoon, May 25, 1832, an effort was 
 made to have the General Conference alone change 
 the time for opening the General Conference from 
 the first of May to the first of June. This is the 
 record : 
 
 " On motion of D. Ostrander, seconded by W. Winans : 
 
 "WHEREAS, Great inconveniences have been experienced 
 when the General Conference commences its session on the 
 first day of May, on account of many of the delegates, espe- 
 cially from the North and East, having to start in a season 
 when the winter is just breaking up and the roads (are) very 
 bad, and when the navigation is still obstructed by ice; and 
 whereas, it is believed that it is perfectly within the province 
 of this Conference to vary the time of its meeting ; therefore, 
 
 "Resolved, That the next General Conference will com- 
 mence its session on the first day of June, instead of the first 
 day of May. 
 
 " Laid on the table." 3 
 
 This shows that some believed the General Con- 
 ference had power to change anything in relation to 
 the General Conference, with the exception of the Re- 
 strictive Rules; but from the fact that the General Con- 
 ference laid the resolution on the table, and did not 
 
 i General Conference Journals, Vol. I, p. 402. 2d. t p. 413. 
 
412 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN MKTHODISM. 
 
 take it up, it is evident that the Conference itself did 
 not believe that it had power to change the date for 
 opening a General Conference session, or to make 
 any other change in the body of the constitution of 
 1808, without the concurrence of the ministers in the 
 Annual Conferences. 
 
 In the General Conference of 1836 an eifort was 
 made to further reduce the ratio of representation. 
 On* the 27th of May, 1836, "on motion of J. Early, 
 the resolution of P. P. Sandford was called up, and 
 adopted as follows : 
 
 " Resolved, That the ratio of delegation for the next Gen- 
 eral Conference be fixed at one delegate for twenty-one mem- 
 bers of each Annual Conference." 1 
 
 This the Conference had the power to do under 
 the sliding scale agreed to by the General Confer- 
 ence of 1832 and the members of the Annual Con- 
 ference in the quadrennium following that Confer- 
 ence. So this change went at once into the Disci- 
 pline of 1836. 
 
 1 General Conference Journals, Vol. 1, p. 496. 
 
CHAPTER XV. 
 
 CHANGES IN THE CHAPTER ON THE GENERAL 
 CONFERENCE FROM 1856 TO 1868. 
 
 THE bishops, in their Address to the General 
 Conference of 1856, suggested " the propriety of 
 reducing the ratio of representation," and said: " There 
 is already constitutional provision for such reduction, 
 so as to authorize, at your discretion, not less than 
 one representative for every thirty members of An- 
 nual Conferences." l 
 
 The Committee on Revisals recommended "the 
 insertion of the words, ( twenty-seven/ in place 
 of ' twenty-one ' in Part I, chap, iii, sec. 2, Ans. 1, 
 of the Book of Discipline," and the General 
 Conference adopted the report, thus making the 
 ratio of representation one for twenty-seven. 2 
 The same committee recommended " the alteration 
 of the Second Restrictive Rule so as to insert 
 ' one for every forty-five ' in place of ' one for every 
 thirty.'" 3 
 
 " The proposition to change the Second Restrict- 
 ive Rule was adopted by a vote of more than two- 
 thirds of all the members of the General Conference 
 in its favor." 4 
 
 General Conference Journals, Vol. 1856, III, p. 193. 2 Id., p. 153. 
 
 <Jd., p. 154. 
 
 413 
 
414 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 Sherman states that " the General Conference of 
 1856 referred the question of this change to the An- 
 nual Conferences, which concurred;' 7 1 but it is a little 
 remarkable that the bishops, in their Address to the 
 General Conference of 1860, make no mention of 
 having submitted this, though they refer to questions 
 which they did submit to the Annual Conferences, 
 " by request of the Conferences in which they origi- 
 nated." 2 It is clear, however, that the Annual Con- 
 ferences did vote upon it, for the Committee on Itin- 
 erancy, in the General Conference of 1860 made the 
 following report : 
 
 " The subject of the vote to suspend the Second Eestrict- 
 ive Kule by the several Annual Conferences, to increase the 
 rate of representation in the General Conference, was referred 
 to us. We find it impossible to report, as many of the Jour- 
 nals could not be examined, the delegations having sent them 
 home. We present the following resolutions: 
 
 " 1. Resolved, That the bishops be authorized to make the 
 report so that the alteration may be made in the forthcoming 
 Discipline." 3 
 
 This appears to have been attended to ; for the 
 Discipline of 1860 shows the change in the Second 
 Restrictive Kule so that it read " nor allow a less 
 number than one for every forty-five," instead of 
 " one for every thirty." 4 
 
 In their Address to the General Conference of 
 1856 the bishops called attention to the desirability 
 
 i David Sherman, D. D., History of the Revisions of the Discipline 
 of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 1890, 3d Ed., p. 145. 
 General Conference Journals, Vol. IV, 1860, p. 319. 
 Jd.,pp. 294. 
 < Discipline, 1860, p. 46. 
 
CHANGES FROM 1856 TO 1868. 415 
 
 of changing the constitution in regard to calling 
 extra sessions. They said : 
 
 "The rule requiring the concurrent advice of all the An- 
 nual Conferences to authorize the bishops to call an extra 
 session of the General Conference we think unnecessarily re- 
 strictive. We have now thirty-eight Annual Conferences, and 
 a probability of more ; yet any one of them, though the least 
 of all, might defeat the wishes of all the others in regard to 
 an extra session, whatever might be the necessity for it. We 
 respectfully suggest that any state of affairs which would sat- 
 isfy three-fourths or even two-thirds of the Annual Confer- 
 ences, and the bishops, that an extra session of the General 
 Conference was really necessary, should be deemed a sufficient 
 reason for calling it." 1 
 
 On this suggestion the Committee on Revisals re- 
 ported as follows: 
 
 " The committee having duly considered that part of the 
 Bishops' Address which relates to the call of an extra session 
 of the General Conference, recommend the insertion of the 
 following in Part I, ch. iii, sec. 2, in place of our present pro- 
 vision for calling an extra session of the General Conference: 
 
 " But the general superintendents, or a majority of them, 
 by or with the advice of two-thirds of all the Annual Confer- 
 ences, or, if there be no general superintendent, two-thirds of 
 all the Annual Conferences, shall have power to call an extra 
 session of the General Conference at any time, to be consti- 
 tuted in the usual way." 
 
 This was adopted. 2 
 
 This was intended to change the constitution so 
 that instead of requiring the consent of all the An- 
 nual Conferences, the consent of two-thirds would be 
 sufficient. It introduced for the first time the phrase 
 " extra session of the General Conference," and 
 
 i General Conference Journals, Vol. Ill, 1856, p. 193. * Id., p. 153. 
 
416 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 also specified that it was " to be constituted in the 
 usual way." 
 
 We have no evidence that this was voted upon by 
 the Annual Conferences prior to the General Confer- 
 ence of 1856, or subsequently to that session, but the 
 change appears in the Discipline of 1856. This 
 appears to have been done solely by the General 
 Conference, and, if this was the case, it was un- 
 constitutional; for the constitution could not be 
 changed legally excepting by the concurrence of 
 the constitution-making powers, which were the 
 ministers in the Annual Conferences together with 
 the General Conference. 
 
 It was, therefore, in all probability illegally in- 
 serted, as it never received the vote of the Annual 
 Conferences ; but as it has stood so long, and has been 
 so generally accepted, its present constitutionality 
 will scarcely be challenged with any thought of hav- 
 ing it declared invalid. 
 
 The most important change proposed by the Gen- 
 eral Conference of 1856 was an amendment to the 
 Third Restrictive Rule, which read : " They shall not 
 change or alter any part or rule of our government, 
 so as to do away episcopacy or. destroy the plan of 
 our itinerant general superintendency." 1 
 
 Amendments to this rule had been proposed in 
 the General Conference of 1852, 2 but the proposi- 
 tions were not agreed to. The object of these pro- 
 
 Discipline, 1856, p. 36. 
 
 2 General Conference Journals, Vol. Ill, 1832, pp. 66, 67, 76, 79, 
 96, 97. 
 
CHANGES FROM 1856 TO 1868. 417 
 
 posals was to provide supervision for the foreign mis- 
 sion-field in Africa. 
 
 In the General Conference of 1856 the question 
 was again introduced through a suggestion in the 
 Episcopal Address. The bishops, in their Address, 
 suggested three ways of meeting the difficulty : First, 
 to send a bishop to organize " the Methodist Episco- 
 pal Church of Africa;" second, to let the mission in 
 Liberia organize itself; and, third, to appoint a mis- 
 sionary bishop to take charge of the foreign work, 
 while the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United 
 States retained jurisdiction. 1 
 
 The Committee on Missions reported, on the 10th 
 of May, in favor of a " missionary bishop, who shall 
 reside in Liberia, on the western coast of Africa, or 
 in its vicinity, and have episcopal jurisdiction in 
 Africa only." 2 The report was taken up on the 16th 
 of May, and various motions bearing upon the sub- 
 ject were referred to the Committee on Missions. 3 
 The matter was again considered on the 20th, the 
 24th, and the 31st days of May. 4 On the latter day 
 the following resolution was adopted : 
 
 "Resolved, That we recommend to the several Annual 
 Conferences to alter the Discipline, paragraph 3, section 2, 
 Part I, by adding the words, after the word ' snperintendency ' 
 in the fourth line, ' but may appoint a missionary bishop or 
 superintendent for any of our foreign missions, limiting his 
 episcopal jurisdiction to the same respectively.'" 5 
 
 This amendment was submitted to the Annual 
 Conferences, and received from the ministers the 
 
 i General Conference Journals, Vol. Ill, 1856, p. 198. 2 Id., p. 56. 
 Id., pp. 80, 81. * Id., pp. 96, 115, 144, 146. * Id., pp. 144-140. 
 
418 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 requisite vote, so that the bishops, in their Address 
 to the General Conference of 1860, said: "The action 
 of the last General Conference in relation to mis- 
 sionary bishops having been laid before the several 
 Annual Conferences, and the requisite majority of 
 the Annual Conferences having concurred with the 
 General Conference in the proposition to so alter the 
 Discipline as to allow the appointment of a mission- 
 ary bishop or superintendent for any of our foreign 
 missions," 1 they had, on the 14th of October, 1858, 
 set apart the Rev. Francis Burns as the first mission- 
 ary bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church. 
 
 The amendment having been duly made, should 
 have been inserted in the first Discipline issued after 
 the concurrence of the ministry in the Annual Con- 
 ferences, but in some way it did not appear until 
 1872. 2 
 
 Then the amended rule read as follows: "They 
 shall not change or alter any part or rule of our 
 government, so as to do away episcopacy or destroy 
 the plan of our itinerant general superintendency ; 
 but may appoint a missionary bishop or superin- 
 tendent for any of our foreign missions, limiting his 
 jurisdiction to the same respectively," 3 and so it has 
 stood until the present time. 
 
 In this, however, there is one error: As passed 
 by the General Conference of 1856 it contained the 
 word "episcopal;" and read, not "his jurisdiction," 
 
 1 General Conference Journals, Vol. IV, 1860, p. 313. 
 
 2 Sherman says it appeared in 1868; but it does not appear in my 
 Discipline of 1868, while it does for the first time in that of 1872. 
 
 Discipline of 1872. 
 
CHANGES FROM 1856 TO 1868. 419 
 
 but "his episcopal jurisdiction." The latter form 
 was the way it was passed in the Annual Conferences; 
 as, for example, the Journal of the Philadelphia An- 
 nual Conference for April 1, 1857, clearly shows. 
 Why this qualifying word was omitted, we can not 
 say. It might have been a mere accident, or the 
 editor who inserted it might have stricken out the 
 word as superfluous. However that may be, and 
 notwithstanding the fact that it never has been 
 printed in the Discipline, yet it legally stands in the 
 law as adopted, whether printed or not, and ought 
 to be inserted in the next edition. 
 
 The adoption of this amendment inaugurated a 
 new policy for foreign fields, and was a recognition 
 of the fact that the Conferences outside the United 
 States did not have the same status as those in this 
 country. 
 
 In 1860 the General Conference changed the ratio 
 of representation to one for thirty by adopting the 
 following : 
 
 "Resolved, That the ratio for the representation to the 
 next General Conference be one representative for every thirty 
 members of the Annual Conference." * 
 
 On May 24, 1864, John M. Reid, chairman of the 
 Committtee on Itinerancy, presented a report con- 
 taining various items, one of which was a proposition 
 for "a change of the Restrictive Rule allowing each 
 Conference, however small, at least two delegates." 2 
 On May 26th the ayes and noes were ordered, and the 
 
 * General Conference Journals, Vol. IV, 1860, p. 295. 
 Jd.,Vol. V, 1864, p. 208. 
 
420 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 report was adopted by 144 ayes against 59 noes, 11 
 being absent. l 
 
 The report as adopted was as follows : 
 
 " Resolved, That the Second Restrictive Rule be amended 
 by striking out the last words of the rule, namely, ' two dele- 
 gates,' and inserting in their place the following, namely, 
 ' one delegate,' so that it may read : ' Provided, also, that no 
 Conference shall be denied the privilege of one delegate.'" 2 
 
 This was followed by another resolution, namely : 
 
 ''Resolved, That the bishops be directed to present the 
 above at the next session of each Annual Conference for their 
 concurrence ; and, when all the Annual Conferences have 
 acted upon it, publicly to announce the result, and authorize 
 the Book Agents to amend the published copy of the Dis- 
 cipline accordingly." 3 
 
 In their Address of 1868 the bishops do not men- 
 tion the action of the ministers in the Annual Con- 
 ference, but the change appears for the first time in 
 the Discipline for 1868. 
 
 i General Conference Journals, Vol. V, 1864, pp. 235, 236. 
 2Jd., p. 236. 
 
CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 CHANGES IN THE CONSTITUTION FROM 1868 TO 1888. 
 
 greatest change in the chapter on the Gen- 
 JL eral Conference was brought about by an amend- 
 ment admitting laymen into that body. 
 
 The question of lay representation had been be- 
 fore the Church for many years. "The first dis- 
 cussion of this subject commenced by the local 
 preachers, who felt that, in the delegated Confer- 
 ence in 1812, they were without any representa- 
 tion. . . . The discussion on this subject spread 
 more fully throughout the Church between 1816 and 
 1820. . . Everywhere, hdwever, the discussion 
 was connected with the abolition of the episcopacy 
 and the presiding eldership," 1 and the agitation cul- 
 minated in the organization of the Methodist Prot- 
 estant Church in 1828-1830. 
 
 In 1840, " certain abolitionists" 2 "petitioned the 
 General Conference, asking for lay representation," 3 
 but the General Conference adopted the report of a 
 committee declaring "that it is not expedient to 
 change the form of our Church government in any of 
 the matters suggested." 4 
 
 1 Bishop Simpson's Cyclopedia of Methodism, Philadelphia, 1881, 
 p. 530. 
 
 2 James Porter, D. D., History of Methodism, Cincinnati and New 
 York, 1876, p. 499. 
 
 General Conference Journals, Vol. II, pp. 27, 32, 33. * Id., p. 75. 
 
 421 
 
422 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 In 1852 the subject was referred to a committee 
 of twenty-nine, of which Dr. Matthew Simpson was 
 chairman. 1 This committee reported " that it is 
 inexpedient so to alter the economy of our Church 
 as to introduce lay delegation into the General and 
 Annual Conferences/' 2 and the report was adopted by 
 one hundred and seventy-one yeas to three nays." 3 
 
 In their Address to the General Conference of 
 I860, the bishops referred to the subject, but did not 
 recommend the adoption of lay delegation. 4 A com- 
 mittee reported on the question, 5 and the report and 
 various substitutes occupied the attention of the Con- 
 ference for several days, 6 when the subject was re- 
 committed to a committee consisting of Davis W. 
 Clark, James Porter, and Sidney Dean. The report 
 of this committee submitted the question to the An- 
 nual Conferences, and also to the " male members over 
 twenty-one years of age." 7 The vote, as officially 
 reported by the bishops to the General Conference of 
 1864, was as follows: "Of the ministers there were 
 1,338 votes for, 3,069 against; of the male members, 
 28,884 for, 47,855 against." 8 
 
 The General Conference of 1868 had the ques- 
 tion under consideration, 9 and a committee of Con- 
 
 1 General Conference Journals, Vol. Ill, p. 26. 2 Id., pp. 147, 148. 
 Id., pp. 90, 91. 
 
 4 General Conference Journals, Vol. IV, 1860, pp. 319, 320. 
 6 General Conference Journals, Vol. IV, 1860, p. 248; Majority and 
 Minority Reports, pp. 445, 447. 
 
 e General Conference Journals, Vol. IV, 1860, pp. 278, 279-285. 
 
 1 1d., pp. 289, 290. 
 
 8 General Conference Journals, Vol. V, 1864, p. 278. 
 
 General Conference Journals, Vol. VI, 1868, pp. 38, 69, 226, 227, 2.58. 
 
CHANGES FROM 1868 TO 1888. 423 
 
 ference was appointed " with a view to prepare a 
 plan." 1 This committee brought in a report 2 as 
 follows: 
 
 " WHEREAS, the General Conference of 1860 expressed its 
 willingness to admit lay delegates to the General Conference 
 whenever the people should desire it ; and whereas, the Gen- 
 eral Conference of 1864 concurred in that action ; therefore, 
 
 " Resolved, 1 . That we also concur in the same, and rec- 
 ommend the following plan to the godly consideration of our 
 ministers and people : 
 
 " Change the Discipline, page 45, Part II, chapter i, sec. 
 1, so that it shall read as follows: 
 
 " Ques. Who shall compose the General Conference, and 
 what are the regulations and powers belonging to it? 
 
 " Am. 1. The General Conference shall be composed of 
 ministerial and lay delegates. The ministerial delegates shall 
 consist of one member for every thirty (30) members of each 
 Annual Conference, to be appointed either by seniority or 
 choice, at the discretion of such Annual Conference, yet so 
 that such representatives shall have traveled at least four full 
 calendar years from the time that they were received on trial 
 by an Annual Conference, and are in full connection at the 
 time of holding the Conference. 
 
 " The lay delegates shall consist of two laymen for each 
 Annual Conference, except such Conferences as have but one 
 ministerial delegate, which Conferences shall be entitled to one 
 lay delegate each. 
 
 "The lay delegates shall be chosen by an Electoral Con- 
 ference of laymen, which shall assemble for the purpose on 
 the third day of the -session of the Annual Conference, at the 
 place of its meeting, at its session immediately preceding the 
 General Conference. 
 
 "The Electoral Conference shall be composed of one 
 laymen from each circuit or station within the bounds of the 
 Annual Conference, and, on assembling, the Electoral Confer- 
 ence shall organize by electing a chairman and secretary of 
 
 i General Conference Journals, Vol. VI, 1868, pp. 264, 205. 
 'Id., pp. 271-277. 
 
424 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 their own number; such layman to be chosen by the last 
 Quarterly Conference preceding the time of its assembling; 
 provided that no layman shall be chosen a delegate either to the 
 Electoral Conference or to the General Conference who shall 
 be under twenty-five years of age, or who shall not have been 
 a member of the Church in full connection for the five con- 
 secutive years preceding the elections. 
 
 " Alter Ans. 3 as follows, page 46 : 
 
 " Ans. 3. At all times, when the General Conference is met, 
 it shall take two-thirds of the whole number of ministerial and 
 lay delegates to form a quorum for transacting business. 
 
 " The ministerial and lay delegates shall sit and deliberate 
 together as one body, but they shall vote separately whenever 
 such separate vote shall be demanded by one third of either 
 order, and in such cases the concurrent vote of both orders 
 shall be necessary to complete an action. 
 
 " Resolved, 2. That during the month of June, 1869, on any 
 day except the Sabbath, the time to be determined by the pas- 
 tor and the two laymen appointed by the Quarterly Confer- 
 ence as hereinafter provided, there shall be held a general 
 election in the several places of worship of the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church, at which all members in full connection, 
 and not less than twenty-one years of age, shall be invited to 
 vote by ballot: Tor Lay Delegation' or 'Against Lay Dele- 
 gation.' This election shall be held under the direction of 
 the preacher in charge and two laymen appointed for the pur- 
 pose by the Quarterly Conference, who shall see that due no- 
 tice is given thereof for at least twenty days before the election, 
 and who shall superintend all the details of the election. 
 They shall report the result within ten days after the election 
 to the presiding elder of the district, who shall report the 
 same to the bishop presiding at the ensuing Annual Confer- 
 ence, to be entered upon the Conference Journal. 
 
 " It shall be the duty of the bishops presiding at the sev- 
 eral Annual Conferences, at their first sessions after the above 
 elections, to lay before those bodies the following proposed 
 amendments to the Second Eestrictive Rule, namely : At the 
 end of line three, after the word ' one,' insert the word ' min- 
 isterial' (page 47 of the Discipline), and after the word ' forty- 
 five,' line seven, same page, add the words 'nor more than 
 
CHANGES FROM 1868 TO 1888. 425 
 
 two lay delegates for any Annual Conference;' and to report 
 the result to the next General Conference, so that, as amended, 
 it shall read, ' They shall not allow of more than one minis- 
 terial representative for every fourteen (14) members of the 
 Annual Conference, nor allow of a less number than one for 
 every forty- five (45), nor more than two lay delegates for any 
 Annual Conference.' 
 
 "Resolved, 3, That should a majority of votes cast by the 
 people be in favor of lay delegation, and should three-fourths 
 (f) of all the members of the Annual Conferences present 
 and voting thereon vote in favor of the above proposed change 
 in the constitution of the Church, then the General Confer- 
 ence meeting in 1872, by the requisite two-thirds (f) vote, can 
 complete the change, and lay delegates previously elected may 
 then be admitted." * 
 
 Under this act "all members in full connection, 
 and not less than twenty-one years of age/' were in- 
 vited to vote "for lay delegation" or "against lay 
 delegation." "The result of the vote of the mem- 
 bership showed over 100,000 in favor and about 50,- 
 000 against." 2 
 
 The Journal of the General Conference of 1872 
 does not give the vote of the Church members on this 
 question, and we have not the exact figures at hand ; 
 but the above statement may be regarded as suf- 
 ficiently accurate for all practical purposes. It is 
 enough to know that a majority of those who voted 
 cast their ballots in favor of lay delegation. Under 
 the constitution of the Church this vote of the laity 
 had no legal value, but was taken as an expression of 
 
 1 General Conference Journals, Vol. VI, 1868, pp. 275-277, and Ap- 
 pendix to Discipline of 1868. 
 
 2 Bishop Simpson's Cyclopaedia of Methodism, Philadelphia, 1881, 
 p. 531. 
 
 28 
 
426 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 opinion upon the part of the people. Of the two, the 
 constitutional vote was that of the ministry in the 
 Annual Conferences. This alone, under the law of the 
 Church, had any force whatever in determining a 
 change in the constitution. 
 
 On the first day of the session of the General 
 Conference of 1872, Bishop Simpson, in behalf of 
 the bishops, reported the ministerial vote as follows: 
 
 " DEAR BRETHREN, The last General Conference devised 
 a plan for lay delegation, which they recommended to the 
 godly consideration of our ministers and people. In connec- 
 tion with this plan, they directed the bishops to lay before 
 the several Annual Conferences a proposed alteration of the 
 Second Restrictive Rule, and to report the result of the vote 
 thereon to this General Conference. 
 
 "In compliance with said action, we laid before each of 
 the Annual Conferences the proposition to alter the Second 
 Restrictive Rule, by adding thereto the word 'ministerial' 
 after the word ' one,' and after the word ' forty-five ' the words 
 'nor more than two lay delegates for any Annual Confer- 
 ence.' Each Conference voted on said proposition, and the 
 aggregate result is as follows : 
 
 " For the proposed change, 4,915 
 
 " Against the proposed change, 1,597 
 
 "Blank, 4" 1 
 
 After this report had been read, the following 
 paper, signed by J. T. Peck, W. L. Harris, E. S. 
 Foster, G. Haven, and T. M. Eddy, was presented : 
 
 "WHEREAS, .The General Conference, at its session in 
 Chicago in 1868, devised a plan for the admission of lay del- 
 egates as members of said General Conference, and recom- 
 mended it to the godly consideration of our ministers and 
 people ; and 
 
 "WHEREAS, A large majority of the members of the Meth- 
 
 i General Conference Journals, Vol. VII, 1872, p. 39. 
 
CHANGES FROM 1868 TO 1888. 427 
 
 odist Episcopal Church, present and voting in accordance 
 with the provisions of said plan, voted in favor of lay del- 
 egation ; and 
 
 " WHEREAS, Three-fourths of the members of the Annual 
 Conferences voted in favor of the change of the Restrictive 
 Rules proposed in said plan, for the purpose of making it 
 lawful to admit to the General Conference lay delegates elected 
 in accordance with said plan ; therefore, 
 
 "Resolved, 1. by the delegates of the several Annual Con- 
 ferences in General Conference assembled, That the change in 
 the Restrictive Rules submitted by the General Conferences, 
 and adopted by the required three-fourths of the members of 
 the Annual Conferences voting thereon, in accordance with 
 the provisions of said plan in the words following, to- wit: 
 (see Plan), be and hereby is adopted. 
 
 "Resolved, 2. That said plan is hereby ratified and adopted, 
 and declared to be in full force ; and the lay delegates elected 
 under it are hereby invited to take their seats as members of 
 the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
 on their credentials now in the hands of the secretary." 1 
 
 At this stage of the proceedings a substitute was 
 offered, in regard to which the record is as follows: 
 
 "On motion of William F. Cowles, the Conference ordered 
 a division of the matter pending, so that the vote may be first 
 taken on the proposed change of the Second Restrictive Rule ; 
 whereupon the mover accepted, as a substitute for so much as 
 relates to this subject, the following, namely: 
 
 "'Resolved, That this General Conference does hereby 
 concur with the Annual Conferences in changing the Second 
 Restrictive Rule, so as to read as follows : 
 
 "'They shall not allow of more than one ministerial 
 representative for every fourteen members of an Annual Con- 
 ference, nor allow of less than one for every forty-five ; nor more 
 than two lay delegates for any Annual Conference.' " 2 
 
 This, consequently, took the place of Dr. Peck's 
 first resolution. Upon it a yea and nay vote was 
 
 1 General Conference Journals, Vol. VII, 1872, p. 40. ' Id., p. 41. 
 
428 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 ordered, and the resolution was adopted by a vote of 
 283 in the affirmative, to 6 in the negative; while 3 
 were recorded as absent or not voting. 1 
 
 The amendment to the Second Restrictive Rule 
 having received the requisite vote in the Annual 
 Conferences, and now having received the constitu- 
 tional vote in the General Conference, the rule was 
 accordingly amended by the constitutional process. 
 
 There was, however, a slight difference between 
 the form of words as voted upon by the General Con- 
 ference of 1872 and that voted upon in the Annual 
 Conferences. It will be noticed that the form in the 
 resolution of W. F. Cowles, as adopted by the Gen- 
 eral Conference of 1872, read, "nor allow of less 
 than one for every forty-five," while the form as pre- 
 sented in 1868 and adopted by the ministry in the An- 
 nual Conferences, read, " nor allow of a less number 
 than one for every forty-five." The Discipline of 
 1872 has the latter form which no doubt fairly repre- 
 sents the intention, though they were not the exact 
 words passed by the General Conference of 1872. 
 
 On the same day, A. J. Kynett offered a paper 
 "as a substitute for the second resolution of the paper 
 presented by Jesse T. Peck." Dr. Kynett's paper 
 contained the following resolutions: 
 
 " Resolved, 1. That the said plan, recommended as above by 
 the last General Conference, and published in the Appendix 
 to the Discipline, page 333, be and is hereby adopted, to be in- 
 serted in the Discipline as directed; it being, however, under- 
 stood that the General Conference, as thus constituted, may 
 
 > General Conference Journals, Vol. VII, 1872, p. 43. 
 
CHANGES FROM 1868 TO 1888. 429 
 
 at any time alter or amend the same, and cause such alter- 
 ation or amendment to take immediate effect. 
 
 "Resolved, 2. That the credentials of lay delegates be now 
 received, and that they be entitled to seats in this General 
 Conference." * 
 
 This was a claim that the General Conference 
 alone could a at any time alter or amend" the body 
 of the constitution, which certainly was contrary to 
 all constitution-making principles, and contrary to 
 constitutional ideas as taught by the history of the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church. This theory would 
 put only the Restrictive Rules beyond the sole con- 
 trol of the General Conference. 
 
 " On motion, this substitute was laid on the 
 table," 2 and the General Conference, for that time, 
 refused to take this dangerous position. 
 
 W. F. Cowles offered another substitute, which 
 also was laid on the table. 3 "On motion, the Con- 
 ference ordered a division of the question, so as to 
 vote on so much of the pending resolution as ratifies 
 and adopts the ' plan ' of lay delegation." 
 
 This referred to the first part of Dr. Peck's sec- 
 ond resolution. "At* this stage of the proceedings 
 the previous question was ordered, and the vote was 
 taken by ayes and noes," and the result showed 252 
 ayes, 36 noes, and 4 absent or not voting; so the first 
 item of the resolution was therefore adopted, in words 
 following, viz. : 
 
 " Resolved, That said plan is hereby ratified and adopted." 4 
 
 i General Conference Journals, Vol. VII, 1872, p. 43. * Ibid. 
 
 8 Id., pp. 43, 44. Id. , pp. 44^6. 
 
430 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 The Journal then states that, "by this action, 
 Answer 1 to the question, 'Who shall compose the 
 General Conference, and what are the regulations 
 and powers belonging to it?' in Part II, chap, i, 
 sec. 1, of the Discipline, was so changed as to read " l 
 as in "The Plan" suggested in 1868. 
 
 "Samuel A. W. Jewett submitted, as a substitute 
 for the remaining portion of the resolution, a motion 
 that the roll of laymen whose certificates of elec- 
 tion are in 'the hands of the secretary be now called, 
 and that those persons who may be duly accredited 
 be admitted to seats in this General Conference. 
 The vote on this motion was taken by ayes and noes, 
 with the following result :" Ayes, 288 ; nay, 1 ; ab- 
 sent or not voting, 3, 2 William H. Perrine, D. D., 
 of Michigan, being the only one who voted in the 
 negative. Certificates of election were then pre- 
 sented by the laymen, and lay delegation was incor- 
 porated in the General Conference. 
 
 The Journal states that, by the vote of the Gen- 
 eral Conference, u The Plan " was placed in the chap- 
 ter on the General Conference ; . but as to the consti- 
 tutionality of this, many grave questions have been 
 raised. Some hold that the part of the Discipline which 
 relates to the composition and powers of the Gen- 
 eral Conference is a single instrument, in the nature 
 of a constitution, and that to change any part that 
 refers to the composition of the body, it is necessary 
 to pursue the same process which would be required 
 in amending a Restrictive Rule. 
 
 General Conference Journals, Vol. VII, 1872, pp. 46. 2 Id., pp. 4C-48. 
 
CHANGES FROM 1868 TO 1888. 431 
 
 That this is a sound principle must be admitted. 
 If, then, "The Plan" was not voted upon by the 
 ministers in the Annual Conferences, and did not re- 
 ceive the requisite three-fourths vote, its incorpora- 
 tion in the constitution was not constitutional, even 
 if it had received a unanimous vote in the General 
 Conference. 
 
 Some maintain that neither preachers nor people 
 voted upon "The Plan," but upon the principle. As 
 a matter of fact, the members voted " for lay dele- 
 gation " or "against lay delegation;" and the minis- 
 ters in the Annual Conferences voted only on the 
 amendment to the Restrictive Rule. This amend- 
 ment was all that the bishops were instructed to 
 submit to the Annual Conferences was all that was 
 submitted to the Annual Conferences ; and the vote 
 of the ministers upon that is all the bishops pre- 
 sented in their report. 
 
 The New Hampshire Conference, in April, 1870, 
 presented to Bishop Simpson, who was in the chair, 
 the question whether its vote would " include the 
 adoption of the plan of the General Conference, or 
 simply the amendment of the Second Restrictive 
 Rule," and he decided that "the vote of the Confer- 
 ence was not to be on the plan, but simply and alone 
 on the alteration of the Restrictive Rule ;" and 
 " Bishop Baker, who was present, was announced as 
 concurring in this decision." 1 
 
 "The Methodist of April 16th, and Zion's Herald 
 
 i Principles of Church Government, by W. H. Perrine, D. D., edited 
 by J. H. Potts, D. D., New York, Ib87, pp. 41, 42. 
 
432 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 of April 14th, same year, said: l Bishop Janes, before 
 the New York Conference, declared that the vote of 
 the Conference did not touch the plan, but only gave 
 the General Conference power to admit laymen to 
 its body. 7 " 1 
 
 The Rev. Dr. J. M. Reid, editor of the North- 
 western Christian Advocate, in March 1872, said: " 1. 
 The people voted only on the principle, and not on 
 the plan. Their ballots were ' for lay delegation/ and 
 ' against lay delegation/ 2. The ministers did not 
 vote on the plan, but solely on the alteration of the 
 Restrictive Rule. Nothing else was ever submitted 
 to the Conferences by the bishops. They were not 
 authorized to present anything else." 2 
 
 Dr. Daniel Curry, editor of the Christian Advo- 
 cate, said : " The ' Plan ' was simply recommended to 
 the consideration of ministers and people;" 3 and the 
 Michigan Annual Conferences put on record the fol- 
 lowing : " (1) The vote we cast is solely upon the 
 change of the Restrictive Rule. (2) We do not in- 
 dorse the plan proposed by the General Conference 
 for our consideration." 4 
 
 It would seem plain, therefore, that the Annual 
 Conferences did not vote upon the plan. 
 
 It might be assumed that they tacitly agreed to the 
 plan; but the facts already cited show that bishops 
 declared the Conferences were not to vote on the plan, 
 and that at least some of the Conferences explicitly de- 
 clared they did not vote on the " Plan;" and, therefore, 
 
 iPerrine's Principles of Church Government, p. 42, * Id., p. 45. 
 /d., pp. 44, 45. ./d.,p.51. 
 
CHANGES FROM 1868 TO 1888. 433 
 
 
 
 its insertion into the body of the constitution relating 
 to the composition and organization of the General 
 Conference was not made in a constitutional manner. 
 
 The intention of a voter can only be inferred 
 from the vote he casts; and, as the ministers in the 
 Annual Conferences only voted for the amendment 
 to the Restrictive Rule, we must infer that the 
 amendment to the rule was all they intended. Cer- 
 tainly no amendment can be made to a constitution 
 except by a vote on the exact language of the pro- 
 posed change, which was not the case in the present 
 instance. 
 
 The insertion of the plan by the General Confer- 
 ence was not a "regulation," but an amendment to 
 the body of the constitution, which could not be 
 done by the General Conference alone ; and it can 
 not be maintained that the amendment to the Second 
 Restrictive Rule necessarily carried with it the details 
 of the plan; for, while the amendment brought the 
 laity into the General Conference in a legal manner, 
 it did not necessarily involve the details of the plan, 
 for these details required further constitutional amend- 
 ment. 
 
 That a great and representative body like the 
 General Conference made the changes referred to, 
 does not prove that the action was right, or that the 
 changes were made in a proper manner. So Judge 
 Hare remarks: "It is on this principle that the 
 validity of a command depends, not on the dignity or 
 rank of the person from whom it comes, but on 
 whether he is duly authorized; and that an illegal 
 
434 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 
 
 order, from whatever source, is void that the bal- 
 ance of the constitution depends." 1 
 
 The proper course would have been, to have sub- 
 mitted the entire amendment, including the "Plan," 
 to the vote of the members of the Annual Conferences. 
 
 However, as the "Plan" has stood in the consti- 
 tution for almost twenty years, it is not likely that 
 any serious eifort will be made to question its present 
 constitutionality, no matter what a critical judgment 
 may say as to the faultiness of the process. It may 
 be 'claimed that an objection is precluded by the law 
 of limitations, and that an unconstitutional change 
 has become constitutional by lapse of time, and failure 
 to take exception at the proper time. This might 
 not be the ruling of a Supreme Court in State or 
 Nation, but it will probably be the decision of the 
 Supreme Court of public opinion. 
 
 The act of the body of the ministry in the An- 
 nual Conferences and of the ministers in the General 
 Conference, in providing for lay delegation, has been 
 pronounced the most remarkable instance of the vol- 
 untary relinquishment of power to be found in the 
 history of the world. 
 
 The clergy were under no compulsion to give up 
 the authority they had possessed from the beginning, 
 and yet they voluntarily admitted the laity into the 
 supreme legislative body of the Church to share with 
 them the vast powers of the General Conference. 
 
 The " Plan " had " one member for every thirty 
 
 !J I. Clark Hare, LL. D., American Constitutional Law, Boston, 
 1889, Vol. I, p. 29. 
 
CHANGES FROM 1868 TO 1888. 435 
 
 members of each Annual Conference" which was the 
 same as it had been since I860, but the Discipline of 
 1872 read " one member for every forty-five mem- 
 bers." The Committee on Itinerancy recommended 
 a change from one for thirty to one for thirty-nine, 
 but Mr. Hiram Price moved to amend the report by 
 striking out thirty-nine and inserting forty-five, so 
 that the clause would read : " The ministerial dele- 
 gates shall consist of one member for every forty-five 
 members of each Annual Conference," * and the 
 amendment was adopted. This change to forty-five 
 the General Conference had a right to make under 
 the Second Restrictive Rule as it then stood. In 
 1860 the General Conference made a deliverance on 
 the rights of transferred preachers. 2 This for some 
 years appeared in the Appendix to the Discipline 
 until the General Conference of 1872 ordered that 
 this decision in a slightly modified form should be 
 placed as a foot-note to the first paragraph of the 
 section on the General Conference, as follows: "A 
 transferred preacher shall not be counted twice in 
 the same year as the basis of the election of delegates 
 to the General Conference, nor vote for delegates to 
 the General Conference in any Annual Conference 
 where he is not counted as a part of the basis of 
 representation, nor vote twice the same year on any 
 constitutional question." 3 
 
 So the General Conference of 1868 passed a reso- 
 
 i General Conference Journals, Vol. VII, 1872, p. 343. 
 
 2 General Conference Journals, 1860, p. 364. 
 
 General Conference Journals, Vol. VII, 1872, p. 438. 
 
436 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 lution in regard to certificates of election to the Gen- 
 eral Conference. 1 This also stood in the Appendix 
 to the Discipline until the General Conference of 
 1872, after inserting the words a and Electoral/' di- 
 rected that it be inserted as a foot-note to Answer 1 
 to Question 1 in the same section. It appeared, how- 
 ever, as a foot-note to the fourth paragraph, as fol- 
 lows : "The secretaries of the several Annual and 
 Electoral Conferences shall send to the secretary of 
 the last General Conference a certified copy of the 
 election of delegates and reserves to the next Gen- 
 eral Conference in the order of their election, as soon 
 after the election as practicable, so that a roll of 
 members and reserves may be prepared for the open- 
 ing of the next General Conference." 2 Though 
 these foot-notes were appended to the constitution 
 they were no part of it, but were merely statutory 
 enactments of the General Conference. 
 
 Another minor change that ought to be noted is, 
 that while the " Plan/' as adopted by the General 
 Conference of 1872, had, in the paragraph relating to 
 " the Electoral Conference," the words " such lay- 
 men to be chosen by the last Quarterly Conference 
 preceding the time of its assembling," the Discipline 
 of 1872 has the words "preceding the time of the 
 assembling of such Electoral Conference." In this 
 there is no change of sense, but rather an improve- 
 ment in the style. The alteration, however, was the 
 work of the editors. As to their right to change 
 
 i General Conference Journals, Vol. VI, 1868, p. 210. 
 
 General Conference Journals, Vol. VII, 1872, pp. 439, 440. 
 
CHANGES FROM 1868 TO 1888. 437 
 
 even a word in the constitution, we have already given 
 an adverse opinion. Dr. Sherman, who is usually quite 
 accurate, is slightly in error in indicating that the 
 words "such laymen to be chosen by the last Quarterly 
 Conference preceding the time of the assembling of 
 such Electoral Conference," l were introduced in 
 1876. 
 
 There was also another change; namely, the 
 omission of the question at the head of the section 
 on the General Conference : " Who shall compose the 
 General Conference, and what are the regulations and 
 powers belonging to it?" In 1792 the question was, 
 "Who shall compose the General Conference?" but 
 the General Conference of 1808, in constructing the 
 constitution for the delegated General Conference, 
 added the words, " And what are the regulations and 
 powers belonging to it?" so that the instrument 
 drawn up by the assembled ministry in 1808 covered 
 not only the powers of the General Conference, but 
 also the regulations as to composition, time of meet- 
 ing, presidency, quorum, etc., all being of the nature 
 of a constitution. This change was made probably 
 by the editors, for we have not found any specific 
 authorization by the General Conference, though the 
 editors were directed "to number the several para- 
 graphs of the Discipline consecutively." 2 
 
 In the Discipline of 1872 the form of question 
 and answer disappeared in the arrangement of the 
 sections ; and so one of the relics of Wesley's method 
 
 Sherman's History of the Discipline, 1890, p. 144. 
 a General Conference Journals, Vol. VII, 1872, p. 410. 
 
438 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 of asking questions and formulating answers, which 
 became the law for his followers, was eliminated, and 
 has never since reappeared. 
 
 In the Discipline of 1884 several minor changes 
 appear in the wording of the chapter on the General 
 Conference. Thus, at the beginning of each Re- 
 strictive Rule, after the first, instead of the form, 
 "They shall not," we find the phrase, "The General 
 Conference shall not." This was a better phrasing, 
 and brought the form of all the Restrictive Rules in 
 harmony with that of the First, which always had 
 read "The General Conference shall not." 
 
 In the part which said, " The ministerial and lay 
 delegates shall sit and deliberate together as one 
 body," the word "sit" was stricken out, and the 
 word " vote " inserted, and the order changed, so that 
 it read " shall deliberate and vote together." 
 
 The Discipline of 1884 shows a substitution of 
 "nor" for "or" in the First Restrictive Rule, alter- 
 ing the form from " shall not revoke, alter, or 
 change" to "shall not revoke, alter, nor change our 
 Articles of Religion, nor establish any new standards." 
 In the Discipline of 1808 the form was "or" and 
 the change of "or" to "nor" in 1884 was the work 
 of the editor or of the printer. 
 
 The phrase "the Charter Fund," in the Sixth 
 Restrictive Rule, was changed to "the Chartered 
 Fund," which makes no variation in the sense, while 
 it gives the legal title, as stated elsewhere in the 
 Discipline, the full title, according to the charter 
 granted by the Legislature of Pennsylvania, being: 
 
CHANGES FROM 1868 TO 1888. 439 
 
 "The Chartered Fund of the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church in the United States of America." 
 
 Another change appeared in the part relating to 
 extra sessions. Since 1856 it had read, "Or, if there 
 be no general superintendent, two-thirds of all the 
 Annual Conferences shall have power to call," etc. 
 The editor of the Discipline of 1884 changed "or" 
 to " but," inserted " shall " and " then," began a new 
 sentence, and made it read : " But if there shall be 
 no general superintendent, then two-thirds," etc., and 
 this part was taken out of the place it had occupied 
 and brought down to the foot of the paragraph and 
 the words " such extra session " were added. 
 
 A slight change was made in another particular. 
 In 1808 the phrase used in this connection was "with 
 or by the advice." In 1856 the order was changed to 
 read "by or with;" but in 1884 the editor made it 
 read " by and with." 
 
 In 1856 this part read as follows: "But the gen- 
 eral superintendents, or a majority of them, by or 
 with the advice of two-thirds of all the Annual Con- 
 ferences, or, if there be no general superintendent, 
 two-thirds of all the Annual Conferences, shall have 
 power to call an extra session of the General Confer- 
 ence at any time, to be constituted in the usual way." 
 
 With the editorial changes of 1884, it was made 
 to read: "But the general superintendents, or a 
 majority of them, by and with the advice of two-* 
 thirds of all the Annual Conferences, shall have power 
 to call an extra session of the General Conference at 
 any time, to be constituted in the usual way. 'But if 
 
440 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 there shall be no general superintendent, then two- 
 thirds of all the Annual Conferences shall have power 
 to call such extra session." 
 
 In 1884 the Discipline shows a slight modifica- 
 tion in the first paragraph on the General Conference. 
 The part had read: "The ministerial delegates shall 
 consist of one member for every forty-five members 
 of each Annual Conference." In the Discipline of 
 1884 "member" was stricken out, and "delegate" 
 inserted, so that it read, " one delegate for every 
 forty-five members." 
 
 All these changes are doubtless editorial. Many 
 of them are improvements; but the historian, to be 
 accurate, must declare that changes which are the re- 
 sult of editorial supervision, have not the force of 
 enactments by the General Conference, or of amend- 
 ments by the constitution-making powers namely, 
 the body of the ministry in the Annual Conferences 
 and the delegates in the General Conference acting 
 concurrently. 
 
 One of the most remarkable of the unconstitu- 
 tional insertions in the section on the General Con- 
 ference was made in the Discipline of 1856. It read 
 as follows: 
 
 " The General Conference may try appeals from members 
 of Annual Conferences who may have been censured, sus- 
 pended, expelled, or located without their consent, by a com- 
 mittee embracing not less than fifteen of its members, nor 
 more than one member from each delegation, who, in the 
 presence of a bishop presiding, and one or more of the secre- 
 taries of the Conference keeping a faithful record of all the 
 proceedings had, shall have full power to hear and determine 
 
CHANGES FROM 1868 TO 1888. 441 
 
 the case, subject to the rules and regulations which govern 
 the said Conference in such proceedings, and the records made 
 and the papers submitted in such trials shall be presented to 
 the Conference, and be filed and preserved with the papers of 
 that body." l 
 
 This appeared in the body of the constitution as 
 Paragraph or Answer 5, just after the paragraph on 
 the Presidency of the General Conference and imme- 
 diately preceding the recital of the powers of that 
 body. 
 
 The General Conference had no right to insert 
 the paragraph on Appeals in this place ; for, as we 
 have already seen, while it has "full powers to make 
 rules and regulations" under certain restrictions, it 
 has no power of itself to change or amend the con- 
 stitution. 
 
 In this case, however, the fault was not with the 
 General Conference; for the General Conference 
 ordered that the "paragraph be appended to section 
 2, of Part I, of the Discipline, entitled ' Of the Gen- 
 eral Conference. 7 " 2 
 
 This action made it follow the constitution; but 
 the editor inserted it in the body of the instrument, 
 which, of course, he had no right to do. The most 
 singular circumstance connected with this insertion 
 is the fact that no one appears to have noticed the 
 error, and that it was permitted to stand in the con- 
 stitution for eight years, or, in other words, in that 
 part of the Discipline of 1856 and 1860, and was not 
 removed until 1864, when it was taken out of the 
 
 Discipline 1856, p. 35. 
 
 2 General Conference Journals, Vol. Ill, 1856, p. 173. 
 29 
 
442 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 constitution, where it never had a right to be, and 
 was placed in a new chapter, entitled, " Trial of Ap- 
 peals." l 
 
 In 1860, a paragraph relating to the matter of 
 raising funds to defray the expenses of delegates to 
 the General Conference, was appended to the section 
 on the General Conference, but it was not inserted in 
 the constitution, and in 1864 it was taken from the 
 end of the section. 
 
 After all the changes of eighty years, the follow- 
 ing is the section on the General Conference as it 
 stands in the Discipline of 1888: 
 
 "THE GENERAL CONFERENCE. 
 
 "f 6. The General Conference shall be composed of 
 ministerial and lay delegates. The ministerial delegates 
 shall consist of one delegate for every forty-five members of 
 each Annual Conference, to be appointed either by seniority 
 or choice, at the discretion of such Annual Conference, yet 
 so that such representatives shall have traveled at least four 
 full calendar years from the time that they were received on 
 trial by an Annual Conference, and are in full connection at 
 the time of holding the Conference.* 
 
 " ^ 56. The lay delegates shall consist of two laymen for 
 each Annual Conference, except such Conferences as have but 
 one ministerial delegate, which Conferences shall each be en- 
 titled to one lay delegate. 
 
 "11 57. The lay delegates shall be chosen by an Electoral 
 Conference of laymen, which shall assemble for the purpose 
 
 i Discipline 1864, Chapter II, Section 1, fl 2. 
 
 *A transferred preacher shall not be counted twice in the same 
 year in the basis of the election of delegates to the General Confer- 
 ence, nor vote for delegates to the General Conference in any Annual 
 Conference where he is not counted as a part of the basis of represen- 
 tation, nor vote twice the same year on any constitutional question. 
 
CHANGES FROM 1868 TO 1888. 443 
 
 on the third day of the session of the Annual Conference, at 
 the place of its meeting, at its session immediately preceding 
 that of the General Conference. 
 
 " 1f 58. The Electoral Conference shall be composed of 
 one layman from each circuit or station within the bounds of 
 the Annual Conference, such laymen to be chosen by the last 
 Quarterly Conference preceding the time of the assembling of 
 such Electoral Conference ; and on assembling, the Electoral 
 Conference shall organize by electing a chairman and secre- 
 tary of its own number: Provided, that no layman shall be 
 chosen a delegate either to the Electoral Conference or to the 
 General Conference who shall be under twenty-five years of 
 age, or who shall not have been a member of the Church in 
 full connection for the five consecutive years preceding the 
 elections."* 
 
 " t 59. The General Conference shall meet on the first 
 day of May, in the year of our Lord 1812, in the city of New 
 York, and thenceforward on the first day of May once in four 
 years perpetually, in such place or places as shall be fixed on 
 by the General Conference from time to time ; but the gen- 
 eral superintendents, or a majority of them, by and with the 
 advice of two-thirds of all the Annual Conferences, shall have 
 power to call an extra session of the General Conference at 
 any time, to be constituted in the usual way. But if there 
 Bhall be no general superintendent, then two-thirds of all the 
 Annual Conferences shall have power to call such extra session. 
 
 "1f 6O. At all times when the General Conference is met 
 it shall take two thirds of the whole number of ministerial 
 and lay delegates to form a quorum for transacting business. 
 
 "^[61. The ministerial and lay delegates shall deliberate 
 and vote together as one body ; bat they shall vote separately 
 whenever such separate vote shall be demanded by one-third 
 of either order ; and in such cases the concurrent vote of both 
 orders shall be necessary to complete an action. 
 
 * The secretaries of the several Annual and Electoral Conferences 
 shall send to the secretary of the last General Conference a certified 
 copy of the election of delegates and reserves to the next General Con- 
 ference, in the order of their election, as soon after the election as 
 practicable, so that a roll of members and reserves may be prepared 
 for the opening of the next General Conference. 
 
444 GOVERNING CONFERENCE IN METHODISM. 
 
 "If 62. One of the general superintendents shall preside 
 in the General Conference; but in case no general superin- 
 tendent be present, the General Conference shall choose a 
 president pro tempore. 
 
 "1f 63. The General Conference shall have full power to 
 make Rules and Regulations for our Church under the follow- 
 ing limitations and restrictions, namely : 
 
 " 1. The General Conference shall not revoke, alter, nor 
 change our Articles of Religion, nor establish any new stand- 
 ards or rules of doctrine contrary to our present existing and 
 established standards of doctrine. 
 
 " 2. The General Conference shall not allow of more 
 than one ministerial representative for every fourteen mem- 
 bers of an Annual Conference ; nor of a less number than one 
 for every forty-five; nor of more than two lay delegates for 
 an Annual Conference: Provided, nevertheless, that when 
 there shall be in any Annual Conference a fraction of two 
 thirds the number which shall be fixed for the ratio of repre- 
 sentation, such Annual Conference shall be entitled to an ad- 
 ditional delegate for such fraction ; and provided, also, that no 
 Conference shall be denied the privilege of one ministerial 
 and of one lay delegate. 
 
 " 3. The General Conference shall not change nor alter 
 any part or rule of our government so as to do away episco- 
 pacy, nor destroy the plan of our itinerant general superin tend- 
 ency ; but may appoint a missionary bishop or superintendent 
 for any of our foreign missions, limiting his jurisdiction to the 
 same respectively. 
 
 " 4. The General Conference shall not revoke nor change 
 the General Rules of the United Societies. 
 
 "$5. The General Conference shall not do away the priv- 
 ileges of our ministers or preachers of trial by a committee, 
 and of an appeal ; neither shall they do away the privileges of 
 our members of trial before the society or by a committee, and 
 of an app- al. 
 
 " 6. The General Conference shall not appropriate the 
 produce of the Book Concern, nor of the Chartered Fund, to 
 any purpose other than for the benefit of traveling, supernu- 
 merary, superannuated, and worn-out preachers, their wives, 
 widows, and children. 
 
CHANGES FROM 1868 TO 1888. 445 
 
 " f 64. Provided, nevertheless, that upon the concurrent 
 recommendation of three-fourths of all the members of the 
 several Annual Conferences, who shall be present and vote on 
 such recommendation, then a majority of two-thirds of the 
 General Conference succeeding shall suffice to alter any of the 
 above Restrictions, excepting the first article ; and also, when- 
 ever such alteration or alterations shall have been first recom- 
 mended by two-thirds of the General Conference, so soon as 
 three-fourths of the members of all the Annual Conferences 
 shall have concurred as aforesaid, such alteration or altera- 
 tions shall take effect." 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 CHANGES IN THE SECTION ON THE GENERAL CON- 
 FERENCE FROM 1792 TO 1888. 
 
 THE following is a condensed showing of various changes 
 made from time to time in this section. It is taken mainly 
 from " The History of the Discipline of the Methodist Epis- 
 copal Church," by the Rev. David Sherman, D. D. ; but we 
 have made modifications where there were manifest errors, 
 or where greater clearness could be secured. 
 
 The figures on the left hand show the time when the part 
 was inserted, those on the right show when the paragraphs 
 were taken out, and the other dates show when smaller 
 changes were made : 
 
 THE GENERAL CONFERENCE. 
 
 17O2.] Quest. Who shall compose the General [1872. 
 Conference, [in., 1808, and what are the regulations and powers 
 belonging to it] ? 
 
 Ans. All the Traveling Preachers who shall be in [18O8. 
 full connection at the time of holding the Conference [in., 1800, 
 and have traveled four years], [in., 1804, from the time that 
 they were received on trial by an Annual Conference]. 
 
 1808.] IT 55. I.* The General Conference shall be 
 composed [in., 1872, of Ministerial and Lay Delegates. 
 The Ministerial Delegates shall consist] of one ["member," 
 changed 1884, to "delegate"] for every [five; 1816, seven; 1836, 
 
 *The paragraph numbers are those of the Discipline of 1888. The 
 Roman numerals appeared only in the Discipline of 1872. T. B. N. 
 
 447 
 
448 APPENDIX. 
 
 twenty-one; 1856, twenty-seven ; 1860, thirty ; 1872, forty-five] mem- 
 bers of each Annual Conference, to be appointed either 
 by seniority or choice, at the discretion of such Annual 
 Conference, yet so that such representatives shall have 
 traveled at least four full calendar years from the time 
 that they were received on trial by an Annual Confer- 
 ence, and are in full connection at the time of holding 
 the Conference.* 
 
 1872.] If 56. The Lay Delegates shall consist of two 
 Laymen for each Annual Conference, except such Con- 
 ferences as have but one Ministerial Delegate, which 
 Conferences shall be entitled to one Lay Delegate each. 
 
 If 57. The Lay Delegates shall be chosen by an 
 Electoral Conference of Laymen, which shall assemble 
 for the purpose on the third day of the session of the 
 Annual Conference, at the place of its meeting, at its 
 session immediately preceding the General Conference. 
 
 *[f 58. The Electoral Conference shall be composed 
 of one Layman from each Circuit or Station within the 
 bounds of the Annual Conference ; and, on assembling, 
 the Electoral Conference shall organize by electing a 
 Chairman and Secretary of their own number, such 
 Laymen to be chosen by the last Quarterly Conference 
 preceding the time of the assembling of such Electoral 
 Conference; Provided, that no Layman shall be chosen 
 a Delegate either to the Electoral Conference or to 
 the General Conference who shall be under twenty- 
 five years of age, or who shall not have been a. member 
 
 1872.] * A transferred Preacher shall not be counted twice in the 
 same year as the basis of the election of Delegates to the General Con- 
 ference, nor vote for Delegates to the General Conference in any An- 
 nual Conference where he is not counted as a part of the basis of rep- 
 resentation, nor vote twice the same year on any constitutional 
 question. 
 
APPENDIX. 449 
 
 of the Church in full connection for the five consecutive 
 years preceding the elections.* 
 
 1792.] Quest. 3. When and where shall the next [1796. 
 General Conference be held ? 
 
 Ans. On the first day of November, in the year 1796, in 
 the town of Baltimore. 
 
 1808.] ^[59. II. The General Conference shall 
 meet on the first day of May, in the year of our Lord 
 1812, in the City of New York, and henceforward on the 
 first day of May once in four years perpetually, in such 
 place or places as shall be fixed on by the General Con- 
 ference from time to time ; but the General Superin- 
 tendents [in., 1856, or a majority of them], ["with or by," 
 
 changed 1856, to " by or with," 1884, to "by and with"] the ad- 
 
 vice of [in., 1856, two-thirds of] all the Annual Conferences, 
 (or, if there be no General Superintendent, [in., 1856, two- 
 thirds of] all the Annual Conferences (carried to foot of f in 
 
 1884, and changed to read as below)) [respectively, om., 1856] shall 
 
 have power to call [" a," changed, 1856, to "an;" in., 1856, extra 
 session of the] General Conference, [" if they judge it neces- 
 sary," om., 1856] at any time [in., 1856, to be constituted in the 
 
 USUal way.] [in., 1884 "or "changed to " But "] if there [in., 1884, 
 
 shall] be no General Superintendent, [in., 1884, then] two- 
 thirds of all the Annual Conferences shall have power to 
 call [in., 1884. Such extra session.] l 
 
 *fi 60. III. At all times when the General Confer- 
 ence is met it shall take two-thirds of [" the representatives 
 
 * The Secretaries of the several Annual and Electoral Conferences 
 shall send to the Secretary of the last General Conference a certified 
 copy of the election of Delegates and Reserves to the next General Con- 
 ference, in the order of their election, as soon after the election as 
 practicable, so that a roll of Members and Reserves may be prepared 
 for the opening of the next General Conference. 
 
 1 We have changed Dr. Sherman's arrangement of this paragraph 
 considerably. N. 
 
450 APPENDIX. 
 
 of all th6 Annual Conferences to make," changed, 1872, to <c the 
 
 whole number of Ministerial and Lay Delegates to form "] 
 a quorum for transacting business. 
 
 1872.] IT 61. IV. The Ministerial and Lay Dele- 
 gates shall [" sit," 1884, to " vote "] and deliberate [1884, changed 
 to deliberate and vote] together as one body, but they 
 shall vote separately whenever such separate vote shall 
 be demanded by one-third of either order ; and in such 
 cases the concurrent vote of both orders shall be neces- 
 sary to complete an action. 
 
 1808.] IT 62. V. One of the General Superintend- 
 ents shall preside in the General Conference ; but in case 
 no General Superintendent be present, the General Con- 
 ference shall choose a president pro tern. 
 
 ^[ 63. The General Conference shall have full 
 powers to make rules and regulations for our Church, 
 under the following limitations and restrictions, namely : 
 
 I. The General Conference shall not revoke, alter, 
 [" or " 1884, to * ' nor "] change our Articles of Religion, nor 
 establish any new standards or rules of doctrine contrary 
 to our present existing and established standards of 
 doctrine. 
 
 II. [" They," 1884, to "The General Conference"] shall 
 not allow of more than one [in., 1872, Ministerial] Rep- 
 resentative for every [five; 1836, fourteen] members of 
 the Annual Conference [in., 1872, nor more than two 
 Lay Delegates for any Annual Conference] ; nor allow 
 of a less number than one for every [" seven ; 1836, thirty ; 
 i860, forty-five"]. 
 
 1836.] Provided, nevertheless, that when there shall 
 be in any Annual Conference a fraction of two-thirds the 
 number which shall be fixed for the ratio of represen- 
 tation, such Annual Conference shall be entitled to an 
 
APPENDIX. 451 
 
 additional delegate for such fraction ; and provided, also, 
 that no Conference shall be denied the privilege of 
 
 [" two Delegates," changed, 1861, to " one Delegate"]. 
 
 1808.] HI. ["They," 1884, to "The General Confer- 
 ence "] shall not change or alter any part or rule of our 
 government, so as to do away Episcopacy, or destroy the 
 plan of our itinerant General Superintendency [in., 
 1856,* but may appoint a Missionary Bishop or Super- 
 intendent for any of our foreign missions, limiting his 
 jurisdiction to the same respectively]. 
 
 IV. ["They, "1884, to "The General Conference"] shall 
 not revoke or change the General Kules of the United 
 Societies. 
 
 V. [" They," 1884, to "The General Conference"] shall 
 not do away the privileges of our Ministers or Preachers, 
 of trial by a Committee, and of an appeal ; neither 
 shall they do away the privileges of our members, of 
 trial before the Society, or by a Committee, and of an 
 appeal. 
 
 VI. ["They," 1884, to " The General Conference"] shall 
 not appropriate the produce of the Book Concern, ["or," 
 1828, to "nor"] of the [Charter, changed, 1884, to Chartered] 
 Fund, to any purpose other than for the benefit of the 
 traveling, supernumerary, superannuated, and worn-out 
 preachers, their wives, widows, and children. 
 
 ^f 64. Provided, nevertheless, that upon the ["joint," 
 changed, 1832, to "concurrent"] recommendation of ["ail the," 
 changed, 1832, to " three-fourths of the members of the 
 several"] Annual Conferences [in., 1832, who shall be 
 present and vote on such recommendation], then a 
 
 * By oversight of the Editor, this clause, though authorized by the 
 General Conference of 1856, was not inserted in the Discipline until 
 
 1872. 
 
452 APPENDIX. 
 
 majority of two-thirds of the General Conference suc- 
 ceeding shall suffice to alter any of the above restrictions 
 [in., 1832, excepting the first article ; and also, whenever 
 such alteration or alterations shall have been first recom- 
 mended by two-thirds of the General Conference, so soon 
 as three-fourths of the members of all the Annual Con- 
 ferences shall have concurred as aforesaid, such alter- 
 ation or alterations shall take effect]. l 
 
 i Sherman, History of the Discipline, pp. 143-146. 
 
 (Ettt), 
 
" A book that will live." " It will be a standard work." 
 
 THE El/OLUTION OF EPISCOPflCY 
 
 ORGflNIC METHODISM. 
 
 By KEY. THOMAS B. NEELY, Ph.D., D.D., of Philadelphia, 
 
 AUTHOR OF " YOUNG WORKERS IN THE CHURCH," " CHURCH 
 " PARLIAMENTARY PRACTICE," ETC. 
 
 12mo. Pp. 448. $1.25. 
 
 PUBLISHED BY 
 
 CRANSTON & STOWE, Cincinnati. HUNT & EATON, New York. 
 
 This book is a presentation of the fundamental principles 
 of Church government, and at the same time is a history of 
 Methodism in a new form. 
 
 PRESS NOTICES. 
 
 Dr. T. B. Neely is probably the ablest advocate of Methodism of 
 recent days. The Church Union. 
 
 The Rev. Dr. Neely has said the very best that can be said for the 
 Methodist system of Church government. In his book, The Evolution of 
 Episcopacy, he defines the theory or doctrine of the Methodist Epis- 
 copate. The Christian Union. 
 
 It presents a clear and interesting account of the dawn of Methodism 
 under John and Charles Wesley, and its introduction into the United 
 States. All its points of difference from the Established Church are 
 stated and justified with fairness. Literary News. 
 
 This work presents .not only the nature of the episcopate in the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church, but also " the evolution of the later epis- 
 copacy from the simple forms of the early Christian Church, the modifi- 
 cation of views in the Church of England after the Protestant Reforma- 
 tion, the change of Wesley's views in regard to Church government, the 
 gradual evolution of organic Methodism, the growth of Methodism in 
 America, the validity of Methodist ordinations, and the propriety and 
 legitimacy of the organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church as 
 compared with the Protestant Episcopal and other Churches. Christian 
 Advocate. 
 
 This volume has been received with general favor by the Methodist 
 press. . . . The chapter on Mr. Wesley's relation to the episcopate of 
 American Methodism is full of interest, and some points are made which 
 we do not remember to have seen in just the same form before. Michi- 
 gan Christian Advocate. 
 
TfiB EVOLiUTIOri Op EPISCOPACY. 
 
 This is a timely, popular, and valuable book on a distinctive 
 feature of Methodist polity. It should be in the hands of all our 
 preachers, and it is worthy of an extensive circulation throughout the 
 Church. . . . Dr. Neely is well qualified to write such a book. Buffalo 
 Christian Advocate. 
 
 It is in its details a book for the Methodist denomination, relating- to 
 matters which concern the order and the ministry of those Churches 
 exclusively. Indirectly it has a wider interest for all who love simplicity 
 in the Church and hate the insidious advance of clericalism. . . . The 
 question is one of great importance for its bearing on the freedom and 
 usefulness of the Methodist body, and is handled in a particularly 
 effective and thorough manner by Dr. Neely in this volume. 7'Jie 
 Independent. 
 
 Dr. Neely's reputation as a writer on matters pertaining to Methodist 
 history and economy will not suffer from this publication. It is a 
 valuable contribution to pur denominational literature, and well states 
 and defends our historic doctrine concerning episcopacy. It is a 
 repertory of facts worth knowing, and their knowledge will go far to 
 check any tendency among us to undue claims either by or for our epis- 
 copacy. Baltimore Methodist. 
 
 This is a critical, able, and timely book. Dr. Neely has obtained 
 much credit for himself as an author, and conferred a great benefit upon 
 the Church in writing this volume. It is the ablest and most important 
 book that we have seen on this much-debated topic. It should be read 
 by all our clergy; it will be studied by many of our thoughtful laymen. 
 There are twelve chapters, taking the stretch of the whole question from 
 "The Bishopric in the Early Christian Church," to the action of " the 
 General Conference of 1884." We are personally grateful to Dr. Neely for 
 his elaborate and profound volume. It is much needed. Zion's Herald, 
 Boston. 
 
 The title of this work is attractive, and one finds the interest sus- 
 tained as he reads. It is a well-chosen title, for no other so well expresses 
 just the purpose of the author. We can not improve upon the author's 
 statement of this purpose. . . . The author faithfully carries out his 
 object. The work shows care, research, and ability, and will be 
 welcomed by ecclesiastical students in and out of the Methodist 
 Church. . . . All will acknowledge that the author is fair and candid 
 from his point of view. There ate full and carefully selected citations 
 that make the work valuable, and quite indispensable to the students of 
 denominations. Public Opinion, 1889. 
 
 A clear analytical explanation of the government, and especially of 
 the episcopacy, in the Methodist Episcopal Church. . . . The author 
 has at his command a rich store of General Conference acts, and quota- 
 tions from the first writers of the Church, of which he makes careful and 
 especially efficient use. In view of the brilliant illumination which he 
 sheds upon the circumstance no one can longer doubt whether the High 
 or Low Church theory has now the victory in the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church. . . . The author explains all with the greatest clearness. He 
 has made a valuable contribution to the ecclesiastico-legal literature of 
 his Church. His book deserves the close study of preachers, particularly 
 of such Churches as are governed by bishops or presbyters. Viertel- 
 jahrsschrift fur IVissenschaftliche und Practische Theologie, Cleveland, 
 Ohio, 1889. 
 
 This work bears the marks of careful study, protracted reflection, and 
 clear perception. One of the most important qualifications in the prep- 
 aration of a work on Church Government is the ability to comprehend 
 the subject, so as to distribute the matter luminously arid to avoid unnec- 
 essary repetition. This work makes obvious the possession, to a consid- 
 erable degree, by the author, of this quality. While of special interest to 
 Methodists it is full of valuable information for members of other 
 denominations. It would be difficult to mention any branch of the 
 subject which has not been treated with more or less fullness, and the 
 
EVOliUTIOfl OF EPISCOPHCY. 
 
 more important divisions exhaustively. . . . The serious question of 
 the relation of Wesley to the American Episcopate is elaborately unfolded. 
 Next conies the organization of the Methodist Kpiscopal Church. This 
 chapter is made peculiarly interesting by the full treatment of the views 
 of Dr. (afterward Bishop) White, and the history of the formation of the 
 Protestant Episcopal Church. Christian Advocate. 
 
 Dr. Neely is one of the foremost men in the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church, and any production from his pen is entitled to careful considera- 
 tion. In the present instance we think he has succeeded in giving the 
 Church a clear, consistent, and logical presentation of a subject about 
 which there are confused, not to say nebulous, impressions in some 
 quarters. . . . Our episcopacy, as Dr. Neely shows in his luminous 
 and unanswerable argument, is simply a presbyterial episcopacy in which 
 the order of presbyters is the permanent body, and the episcopos is the 
 superintendent chosen to fulfill certain prescribed functions. Nothing 
 is done by a bishop that may not be done by a presbyter in certain con- 
 tingencies. Even the right to ordain is inherent in the presbytery, and 
 it is delegated for good and sufficient reasons to the bishop. It may be 
 exercised by the elders alone in the event of the death of all the bishops 
 in the Church. Methodist Quarterly Review of the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church, South, 1889. 
 
 If there are any tendencies to prelacy in our Church this volume may 
 operate as a prophylactic ; if the prelatic spirit be actually working 
 among either our ministers or people, this book may be regarded as an 
 antidote. If there be no such tendencies, then it may serve the important 
 purpose of confirming the conviction of our Church that its theory of 
 episcopacy, as being not an order, but an office, has its justification in 
 the simple practice of the primitive Church, in the ecclesiastical theories 
 of the great Protestant Reformers, in the practice of our founder, and in 
 the teachings of the men who framed our Church constitution. Dr. 
 Neely has made this theory a demonstrated fact by citations gathered 
 from many standard authorities, carefully collated, logically arranged, 
 and judiciously commented upon. These citations, with their connecting 
 historical statements, are gathered from many and varied sources. His 
 discussion of the episcopate in our Church is full and satisfactory. It 
 covers the substance of our Church history on episcopal questions, and 
 contains much valuable matter not within the easy reach of most readers. 
 It is therefore valuable both for reading and reference. To those seeking 
 to understand our ecclesiasticism it is an especially desirable book. Dr. 
 Wise, Editor pro tern, of Methodist Review. 
 
 It is a volume not written for a particular occasion ; it will have a 
 permanent place in our Methodist literature. It is an investigation of a 
 portion of our history that does not yet appear to be perfectly under- 
 stood, and Dr. Neely's painstaking study will prove of great service to 
 many persons who have not had access to documents somewhat rare, or 
 time to study the subject. The first half or more of the volume, the first 
 four chapters " The Bishopric in the Early Christian Church," " Episco- 
 pacy in the Church of England," " Wesley's Views of Episcopacy, Ordi- 
 nation and Church Government," and " Wesley's Relation to the .Episco- 
 pate of American Methodism," are in the best style ; the matter is not so 
 well presented elsewhere, so far as we know. The chapter on the 
 "Organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church" illustrates broadly 
 the period, especially the ecclesiastical discussions of the times. And 
 the following history, and the discussions over the episcopal office, are 
 well summarized and give a clear and comprehensive view of the subject. 
 Dr. Neely's position, that the bishopric is an office, not an order of the 
 ministry, is that of the Methodist Episcopal Church. We commend the 
 volume to our laymen. They and their children sh'ould master its 
 contents. Central Christian 'Advocate, St. Louis. 
 
 A restatement of the doctrine of the Church respecting episcopacy is 
 opportune, both to enlighten the uninformed, to check the aggressive 
 spirit of those in sympathy with an ecclesiastical hierarchy, and to settle 
 once for all the position of the Church before the world on a subject that 
 
EVOLUTION Op EPISCOPACY. 
 
 teally troubles our neighbors more than ourselves. Having accom- 
 plished these ends in his book, Dr. Neely may be regarded as an exponent 
 of the Methodist stand-point of episcopal history and prerogative, and 
 until his facts are invalidated his conclusions must pass in all Church 
 circles as final and authoritative. . . . With historic data at hand, Dr. 
 Neely, after considering the simple forms of authority in the early 
 Christian Church, exhibits the modification of episcopal function in the 
 Church of England after the Protestant Reformation, following it with 
 Mr. Wesley's variant view of that function, which passed over into 
 American Methodism as its presiding element and as the standard of 
 episcopal character and life. In this evolution the author makes free 
 use of authorities in the Church of England as the Rev. Edwin Hatch, 
 Dean Stanley, Archdeacon Farrar and obtains a stronger affidavit from 
 Bishop Onderdonk, of the diocese of Pennsylvania, who, on the questions 
 at issue, are as affirmative as either Mr. Wesley or Francis Asbury. 
 Historically Dr. Neely's argument is unanswerable, and, as the key to 
 the controversy is history, it should end with the summoned testimony 
 of history. While the book openly but incidentally exposes the sepul- 
 chral character of the dogma of apostolical succession, its primary and 
 ultimate purpose is the vindication of Methodist episcopacy, both as to 
 its history and character, the author maintaining with characteristic 
 vigor that the third-order dogma is foreign to all Methodist teaching and 
 usage, and to be reprobated as the offspring of the hierarchical mind. 
 Standing on this impregnable conclusion, he readily establishes the 
 validity of Methodist ordination and the propriety and legitimacy of the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church. . . . For the present we rest the case 
 with the author's masterful exposition of it. Methodist Review, JVew 
 York, 2889. 
 

 LOAN DEPT 
 
 ,or 
 
YC 46763