Nathan Bangs · 2 of 28

Chapter 3. From the Death of Bishop Asbury to the Close of the General Conference of 1816. · Part 1

In the closing part of the last volume an incidental allusion was made to a controversy which arose in this country between us and other denominations, but more particularly the Calvinists.

It is well known that not long after Mr. Wesley began his career of usefulness, he was joined by Mr. Whitefield, whose stirring eloquence in the pulpits of the Establishment created a great sensation among both clergy and people, and drew such multitudes to hear him, that he ventured, in imitation of his Divine Master, into the fields, where he proclaimed the glad tidings of salvation to listening thousands. Wesley soon followed the example, and great was the effect produced by their joint exertions in this novel way of preaching Christ and him crucified.

Unhappily, to human appearance, a difference arose between these two great and good men. Whitefield, being much opposed and persecuted by the lukewarm clergy of the Establishment, gradually contracted an intimacy with the Dissenters, and, on his coming to America, became acquainted with the pious and talented Edwards — afterward president of Princeton College — then settled at Northampton, Massachusetts. Finding among these people more of the appearance of evangelical doctrine, and of experimental and practical piety, than with those of the Establishment, Whitefield soon drank in their doctrine of predestination and its correlatives, eternal election and final perseverance. This led to a controversy between him and Wesley, which eventuated in a partial separation — a separation in their respective fields of labor and sentiment, though not in heart and affection — for they always esteemed each other highly as devoted Christian ministers. This took place in the year 1741, Whitefield rallying under the banner of Calvinistic decrees, patronized by Lady Huntingdon, and supported by many of what were called the evangelical clergy of the Establishment in England, and by the most zealous of the Presbyterians and Congregationalists of America — while Wesley and his brother Charles hoisted the flag of Arminius, fortifying themselves with the standards of their own church, and defending themselves by direct appeals to the Holy Scriptures and the dictates of common sense and sound reason. This brought on a protracted warfare between the parties, both from the pulpit and the press, during which the doctrines and measures of Mr. Wesley passed through the severest ordeal of critical investigation, and most heart-searching appeals to Scripture and reason.

This brought the vicar of Madeley, the pious and peace-loving Fletcher, from his retreat in the obscure parish where he had chosen to labor for the salvation of souls, and obliged him, quite contrary to his pacific disposition, to buckle on the armor of a polemic, in which he acquitted himself with singular success. He, indeed, seemed to be providentially raised up for the crisis, and he entered the arena of controversy fully furnished by sound and various learning, by deep and genuine piety, by meekness, patience, and love, and by a power of comprehension and nice discrimination, which peculiarly fitted him to sustain with dignity, firmness, and success, the high and holy cause he was called to defend. It is not saying too much to affirm, that he vanquished all his antagonists, cleared the field of controversy of the thorns and briers of error, and at the same time maintained the spirit and temper of the Christian, while he powerfully wielded the sword of truth, and brought the warfare to a successful issue, sustaining through the entire conflict the character of an able divine, a sound moralist, a consistent minister of Jesus Christ, and an acute and conclusive reasoner.

Though assailed often by bitter railing and biting sarcasm, he maintained the gravity of the minister of Christ and the meekness of the consistent Christian. If at any time he turned the weapon of irony upon his antagonists — as he sometimes did with most powerful effect — it was divested of the venom of bitterness, and dipped in the sweet waters of brotherly love. His masterly defenses of Wesleyan theology remain unanswered, and, it is believed, unanswerable, and will long remain as a monument of his piety, of his devotion to the cause of truth, as well as a lofty beacon to apprise future mariners who may embark upon the rough sea of controversy, of the dangerous shoals and rocks upon which so many heedless men have been wrecked — at the same time distinctly and accurately marking the channel of truth through which the spiritual ark may be safely guided to the harbor of eternal repose.

Armed with the panoply thus furnished them, the Wesleyan missionaries who first visited our shores were prepared to promulgate and defend the doctrines and to enforce the discipline of their founder. As before said, however, they mainly insisted on experimental and practical godliness, urging upon all, high and low, rich and poor, the necessity of a change of heart, — such a change as should be productive of a reformation of life and conduct, in order to insure everlasting salvation. Instead of exhausting their strength in controversial preaching on those debatable points about which they differed from Calvinists, Unitarians, Arians, and Universalists, they generally contented themselves with a plain and unvarnished statement of their doctrinal views, with urging upon the people experimental and practical religion, and with defending themselves when assailed by others. This defense, however, often became necessary, more especially in the northern and eastern states, where the people were more accustomed to a critical examination of doctrinal points, and questions of doubtful disputation.

For some time, however, the number of Methodists in this country was so inconsiderable, that other denominations affected to treat them with silent contempt; and if occasionally they condescended to notice them at all, it was more in the way of caricature and misrepresentation than by sober argument, or an attempt at a fair and direct refutation of their doctrine and usages. The High Churchman would sneer at our ordination, and, wrapping himself in the cloak of apostolical succession, with an air of assumed dignity, prate about “John Wesley’s lay bishops,” as though these jokes were sufficient to put us out of countenance. Others, panoplied in the stern decrees of Calvin, and priding themselves in their exclusive orthodoxy, would tantalize us with “salvation by the merit of good works, the omnipotency of free-will, and the unsoundness of our doctrine of justification;” while some would smile at “baby baptism,” as an affront offered to the Deity, and an innovation upon apostolic usage. These all united to ridicule our itinerant plan of preaching the gospel, as a novelty which must soon come to an end; and, to give point and poignancy to their sarcasms, our itinerant preachers were called “circuit-riders,” as if to ride a circuit were their distinguishing badge, not caring to inform the people whether as preachers or itinerant physicians.

These reproaches were borne with as much patience as possible, and our ministers continued to deserve them more and more by persevering in their peculiar work, and by endeavoring to prove their falsity by a faithful exhibition of the true doctrines of their church, and also to refute the slanderous representations of their mode of life and manner of preaching, by the exemplariness of their conduct. To those who became intimately acquainted with them from personal intercourse, they commended themselves for the depth and uniformity of their piety, as well as by the soundness of their doctrine and the laboriousness of their lives. In all such a confidence was inspired in the strictness of their integrity, as well as in the wisdom of their plans of doing good to the souls and bodies of men.

But, as before said, these controversies and modes of defense were confined chiefly to the pulpit, and to a republication of a few of Wesley’s and Fletcher’s doctrinal and practical tracts and sermons, the reading of which was confined mostly to our own societies and their immediate friends.; we had no writers of note on this side the Atlantic, and no periodical through which we could speak to the public ear; for, as I have before remarked, after the discontinuance of the Arminian Magazine, in 1790 — two volumes only having been published — with the exception of a few straggling pamphlets, which scarcely survived the day of their birth, our press was as silent as the grave in respect to uttering a sentiment from an American author, and the Magazine was not resumed until the year 1818, and even then, as its respected editor announced, with much fear and trembling for its success.

Yet, as the Methodists increased in number and respectability, and their influence upon the public mind was proportionately augmented, other denominations began to awake from their slumber, to look about them for other means than those heretofore used for offensive warfare, as well as to defend themselves against the inroads which Methodism was making upon their congregations, and the impression it produced upon the public mind. For these “circuit-riders” were no idle shepherds. They not only rode circuits, but they “went everywhere preaching the kingdom of God,” breaking over parish lines, entering into every open door, and with a loud, distinct voice, proclaiming to all they could prevail on to hear them, that they must “fear God and give glory to his name.” Hence the opposition to our distinctive doctrines and modes of procedure became more serious and systematical; our opponents began to feel the necessity of meeting us in the field of argument with more fairness; and instead of drawing ridiculous caricatures for the amusement of themselves and their readers, to state our doctrines as we hold them. This, we say, became necessary, for the eyes of the public were becoming somewhat enlightened in respect to what Wesleyan Methodists really believed and taught, and were thence led to hear, and read, and compare for themselves. The consequence was, that the offensive features of Calvinism were becoming more and more repulsive, and the creed by which its nominal followers were distinguished underwent some modifications, better suited, as was thought, to the temper of the times. Thus, instead of ascribing the final destinies of mankind to an omnipotent decree, the subtle distinction was introduced between the natural and moral abilities of men, making the latter the only potent barrier to the sinner’s salvation. This theory, which for some time was confined to comparatively few, seems to have been an improvement upon President Edwards’s system “On the Will,” and was invented by Dr. Hopkins, of Newport, R. I., and thenceforth called, by way of distinction, Hopkinsianism. This, it was thought by many, would enable them to meet and obviate the objections which were brought against the doctrine of unconditional election and reprobation, by placing the criminality of all sinful actions in the perversity of the human will, called “moral inability,” especially as they contended that the sinner possessed a “natural ability” to do all which God required. Hence the doctrine of eternal decrees, as taught by John Calvin, though still held in theory, was studiously kept out of sight by those who embraced these new views, and the theory of “natural ability and moral inability” was substituted in its place.

This subtle theory, however, by no means answered the proposed end. The Methodists still insisted that this “natural ability,” however potent, could never overcome the efficient operation of an immutable decree, which had fixed the destinies of all mankind before the worlds were made — nor would the moral ability or inability alter that which had been made unalterable by the eternal fiat [determination — DVM] of the Almighty.

These conflicting theories somewhat changed the points of controversy between the Calvinists and Arminians. While Wesley and Fletcher were compelled, from their position, to meet their antagonists on the old points of controversy which had been mooted in the Protestant world from the days of John Calvin, his system had now assumed, under the improving hands of some of his most distinguished followers, so many new traits, that new arguments of defense were called for by the advocates of universal atonement and conditional salvation. Under these circumstances, many, on both sides of these controverted points, thought it their duty to enter the field of theological discussion. This they did with all the ardor of new recruits. And among those who distinguished themselves in conducting this theological warfare, might be mentioned men who had grown gray in the cause of Christ, as well as others of younger years, whose youthful temperament may have betrayed them into a harshness of expression, on some occasions, incompatible with the meekness and soberness of the Christian minister — faults of human beings, for which the Christian system alone provides an adequate atonement and mode of forgiveness.

At length circumstances led the author of this History into a public debate with a Presbyterian minister, which was held in the town of Durham, N.Y., May 10, 1810. The discussion involved the “Five Points,” so long mooted by Calvinists and Arminians, and some of the other subjects of dispute already indicated. Not long after, the pastor of the congregation in whose church the debate was conducted, the Rev. Ralph Williston, published a volume of sermons, in which he entered into a discussion of the topics which had been the subjects of controversy in the public debate, and concluded the whole with an examination into the character of “Satan’s ministers,” in which it was broadly insinuated that our ministers, on several accounts, might be classed under that denomination. As it was thought by many that these sermons gave a distorted view of some of our doctrines, and must exert an injurious influence upon our ministry, a reply was published in 1815, in six letters addressed to the author of the sermons, in which an attempt was made to rectify his mistakes, to refute his arguments in favor of the Calvinistic and Hopkinsian theory, and to vindicate the doctrines and ministry of the Methodist Episcopal Church. Some portions of these letters were severely animadverted upon by the Rev. Mr. Haskil, of Vermont, to which an answer was published in a small book, called “Predestination Examined.” Soon after, Mr. Williston sent out a second volume, in reply to the “Errors of Hopkinsianism,” the title of the book containing the letters addressed to that gentleman, called “A Vindication of some of the essential Doctrines of the Reformation.” This attempt to identify the peculiarities of Hopkinsianism with the essential doctrines of the reformers, called forth “The Reformer Reformed,” the title being suggested by the impression, that if the Reformation carried with it errors of such a pernicious consequence, as it was believed must flow from the doctrine of an efficient operation of universal and immutable decrees, the Reformation itself needed reforming — a sentiment not retracted on more mature consideration.

It by no means becomes me to express an opinion of the character or results of this protracted discussion, though I may be allowed to indulge a hope that it had its use in bringing our doctrines more prominently before the public, in rectifying some erroneous impressions respecting our ministry and usages, and in awakening public attention to the precise points of difference between us and our Calvinistic brethren. The subject, however, has been thus introduced here, because these things belong properly to the history of the times, and also to show the position we occupied in the ecclesiastical affairs of the country, as well as the duties which seemed to devolve on us to defend, as far as we were able, our doctrines and usages from all unjust imputations. It will be found in the sequel that we were called upon to sustain an arduous conflict with our brethren of other denominations, as well as with some of our own household, who, for various reasons, “went out from us,” in order to rescue our ministry from reproach, and our doctrines, government, and usages from the numerous objections which were preferred against them.

Another thing tended about this time to direct our attention to the general state of the religious affairs in our country. Allusion has already been made to the “Charitable Society for the Education of pious Young Men for the Ministry of the Gospel,” and of the commission which was sent to explore the western country, and to report the religious state of things in that portion of our republic.

To awaken public attention to the necessity and importance of sustaining this society, Dr. Lyman Beecher, in behalf of the society, issued an address to the churches, calling on them for pecuniary aid, to support and educate indigent pious young men for the ministry, assigning, among other reasons, the peculiar fitness of such young men, from their more hardy character and habits of life, to enter upon this rugged field of labor. To make the deeper and more powerful impression upon the Christian community in favor of the object proposed, the address went into a statistical account of the religious state of the several portions of our country, and concluded by a most rousing appeal to the sympathies and liberality of the people in behalf of the Education Society. In describing the moral and spiritual desolation of these United States, the address disclosed the astounding fact, that, in addition to those already in the services of the sanctuary, there were wanting “five thousand competent ministers,” to supply the entire population of our country with the word and ordinances of the gospel.

At the announcement of this fact, the Christian community awoke as from a deep slumber. They began to look around them for the data on which this calculation was founded. On examination, it was ascertained that the address assumed the necessity of one minister to every one thousand souls — that, as there were at time eight millions of inhabitants in the United States and territories, and as there were, says the address, only three thousand educated ministers in the land, there remained five millions of the inhabitants destitute of a competent ministry. This was an alarming conclusion.

Among others who published strictures on this strange production, the late Rev. Freeborn Garrettson wrote a small pamphlet, in which he showed the effect which the statements set forth in the address must have upon other denominations. He, as well as others who examined the statistics of Dr. Beecher, concluded that he meant to exclude all other ministers than those of the Calvinistic order from being “competent” to the work in which they were engaged; for, on a very moderate calculation, there were even then more than three thousand ministers belonging to the Presbyterian, Dutch Reformed, and Congregational churches; and it is believed that among the Baptist, Lutheran, Protestant, and Methodist Episcopal Churches, without saying any thing of the minor sects, there were more than five thousand ministers, many of whom would by no means suffer from a comparison with their brethren of the other denominations; hence, allowing the accuracy of this calculation, there was at that very time more than one minister for every one thousand human souls; the irresistible conclusion therefore was, that the address excluded from the catalogue of competent ministers all except those who belonged to one or the other of the Calvinistic churches above named. And this conclusion is strengthened by the fact, that the address dwelt so emphatically upon the necessity of “an educated ministry” as being essential to the efficient discharge of its duties, as it is well known that most of the other churches, however highly they might appreciate human learning, do not consider it an essential prerequisite to a gospel ministry.

Such a disclosure of opinions, so deeply implicating the character and competency of so many ministers, many of whom had furnished the most irrefutable evidence of their efficiency in spreading the doctrines of God our Saviour, taken in connection with the report from the commission sent to explore our western country, might well alarm the apprehensions of all concerned; and hence a deep tone of dissatisfaction was heard throughout the churches, and a general burst of indignation against the assumptions of the address was simultaneously expressed by the several denominations who felt that their ministry were proscribed by its unwarrantable conclusions. The zeal, too, with which the address urged its claims upon the churches more immediately interested in its objects, showed that a mighty effort was making to carry into practical effect its comprehensive plans. As an evidence of this take the following extract: —

“To produce such a combination and such an effort, the wretched state of our country must be made known. The information contained in this address may with propriety, it is believed, be communicated on the sabbath to all our worshipping assemblies, and the investigation commenced in it be continued, until a regular and minute account be given of the religious state of our land. The newspaper, the tract, and magazine must disclose to our slumbering countrymen their danger. The press must groan in the communication of our wretchedness; and from every pulpit in our land the trumpet must sound long and loud. The nation must be awakened to save itself by its own energies, or we are undone.”

We have no right, nor have we any wish, to decide upon the character of men’s motives, any further than their words and actions proclaim it. And allowing that the end proposed by the gentlemen who wrote and sanctioned this address was purely the salvation of souls from sin, and the salvation of our country from its ruinous consequences, the means used were highly laudable, and the stirring language of the address, a fair sample of which is found in the preceding extract, was admirably calculated to arouse the slumbering energies of the church to a zealous activity in the cause of reform. Yet it could not but seem somewhat strange to us, that they should not have awakened to this all-important subject until just then — at a time too when other denominations, and particularly the Methodists, had been blessed with the most extensive revivals of religion which had been witnessed in any age or land since the apostolic days. This is fully attested by the preceding volume of this History. Were the authors of this address ignorant of these facts? We had reason to believe that it was a knowledge of them which aroused their dormant energies, and led them just then to put forth their strength to counteract the growing influence of Methodism. For it was to the western country chiefly, and in the southern states, that this society were about to direct their efforts to supply the lack of ministerial service. And it was in the west more especially that our ministry had been so abundantly blessed. It was here, where the inhabitants from the older states and from Europe were pouring in with unparalleled rapidity, that, through the agency of camp meetings, and a general itinerant ministry, Methodism had already wrought wonders, and was still going forward, keeping pace with the extension of the settlements, and bowing the hearts of sinners to the yoke of Jesus Christ. Had we not, therefore, reason to suspect that our ministry especially were denounced as incompetent, and that the fear was the country would become deluged with the bitter waters issuing from the corrupt fountain of Methodism! Whether true or false, such was the impression, and therefore, in conjunction with others who felt themselves deeply implicated by the assumptions of this remarkable address, we felt ourselves authorized to enter our protest against its doctrines, and to furnish the people with an antidote to its injurious insinuations. This, as I have before said, was done by Mr. Garrettson; and the following extract from his pamphlet will show the successful manner in which he exposed and refuted the erroneous calculations of the address. Addressing himself directly to Dr. Beecher, he thus shows the fallacy of his arguments: —

“You have placed your church in Connecticut on the highest scale among the several states in the Union. You have given a short history of it, and have, in your way, prostrated the southern part of our country. Probably you are a native of Connecticut; I was born in Maryland; and as you have, among other southern states, undertaken to degrade the religious character of the people of this state, I am willing to compare them with those of your state. I am well acquainted with about every part of both; and as you have fixed your eye on the Congregational Church in Connecticut, I shall fix mine on the Methodist Episcopal Church in Maryland.

“You say that you have upward of 200 congregations, averaging 50 members each, making about 10,000 church members. I have looked over our church records, and find that we have in Maryland more than 25,000 church members, who have the pure word of God preached, and the sacraments duly administered.”

It was, moreover, the opinion of many, that the address had a political object in view. This opinion was founded on the following extract, taken in connection with the conclusion which seems to he warranted from the general tenor of the address, that ministers of other denominations were proscribed as being incompetent. After speaking of the defective character of the general government, on account of its not containing adequate provisions for its own permanency, the address adds

“A remedy must be applied to this vital defect of our national organization. But what shall that remedy be? There can be but one. The consolidation of the state governments would be a despotism. But the prevalence of pious, intelligent, enterprising ministers through the nation, at the ratio of one for a thousand, would establish schools, and academies, and colleges, and habits and institutions of homogeneous influence. These would produce a sameness of views, and feelings, and interests, which would lay the foundation of our empire on a rock. Religion is the central attraction which must supply the deficiency of political affinity and interest. Religion is the bond of charity, which in storms must undergird the skip.”

We accord to the soundness of these sentiments, provided they apply to Christianity as a system of universal good-will to men, and as designed and calculated to connect the hearts of all together in one common brotherhood, and finally to produce, by its action on the heart and conduct, a conformity to its holy precepts. But the general contents and manifest tendency of the address seemed to forbid such a construction, and to place its authors in the position of strong sectarists, who were laboring to build up a particular denomination at the expense of all the rest. This “homogeneous influence” — this “sameness of views, and feelings, and interests,” were to be produced by the multiplication of “educated and competent ministers,” who should be trained up in the school of this society, who should receive their lessons of instruction from Andover, and thence go out clothed with authority to propagate Calvinism, whether under the form of the Old or New School Divinity, whether in the guise of Congregational or Presbyterian theology; while it appeared manifest that all others were proscribed as heterodox and incompetent, and therefore could not contribute to throw around the national ship, in time of a tempest, the strong cords of pure religion, and thus save the nation for a political wreck.

We do not indeed say that this was the real design of the authors of this address; but if it were not, it was most unhappily worded, and should have been either corrected or disavowed, neither of which, so far as is known to the present writer, has ever been done, although I believe that the inferences which were drawn from it, and the general indignation it produced in a great portion of the religious community, caused its authors to withdraw it from circulation.

Thus much I have thought it a duty to say in respect to this controversy, because of its immediate bearing on the interests of our Church, and its more remote tendency upon its future history. It certainly tended to keep alive the fire of contention between us and the Calvinistic churches, and thus to widen the breach already existing between the two great families, the Calvinists and Arminians.

There was another event of general interest which occurred this year, and which had a favorable bearing upon our affairs, particularly in the state of Connecticut. In this state the original charter, which was received from the king of England on the first settlement of the country, had been the only constitution the state had possessed up to the time of which we now speak. It is well known that in the early settlement of that colony, provision was made by law that no person should vote at an election, or hold a civil office, unless he were a member of the church. This severe and impolitic law was afterward so far relaxed as to allow those who joined the “half-way covenant,” in order to obtain Christian baptism for their children, to be eligible to civil offices, and to exercise the right of suffrage. Still, however, the law was exclusive in its demands, making it essential, in order to possess civil rights, to he either in the “half-way covenant,” that is, members of the Congregational society, or otherwise to become full members of that church. By these civil regulations the Congregationalists were established by law, and were supported by a regular tax, while other sects were held under civil disabilities, being obliged, in addition to supporting themselves, to contribute their quota for the maintenance of the established clergy, at the same time that they were disfranchised from the privileges of freemen, by an exclusion from all offices of trust and profit. Nor could the clergy of the Dissenters perform the rites of matrimony even for members of their own congregations.

These severe and unjust regulations were so far modified from time to time as to allow those who belonged to dissentient sects the privilege of depositing a certificate in the town clerk’s office of their having separated themselves from the “standing order,” and they were thereby exempted from paying ministerial tax for the maintenance of the established clergy. They were also entitled to hold offices in the state, and to vote at the elections.