Nathan Bangs · 25 of 28

Chapter 9. The General Conference of 1828. · Part 1

This conference convened in the city of Pittsburgh, May 1, 1828. Five bishops, namely, McKendree, George, Roberts, Soule, and Hedding, were present, and the conference was opened by Bishop McKendree, with reading the Scriptures, singing, and prayer, after which Dr. Ruter, book agent at Cincinnati, was elected secretary.

The following is a list of the delegates who composed this conference: —

New York Conference: Heman Bangs, Nathan Bangs, Thomas Burch, Laban Clark, John Emory, Buel Goodsell, Samuel Luckey, Stephen Martindale, Daniel Ostrander, Lewis Pease, Phineas Rice, Marvin Richardson, Peter P. Sandford, Arnold Scholefield, Tobias Spicer, Henry Stead, John B. Stratten, James Youngs.

New England Conference: John Adams, Lewis Bates, Isaac Bonny, Daniel Dorchester, Daniel Fillmore, Wilbur Fisk, John Hardy, Benjamin Hoyt, Edward Hyde, John Lindsey, John Lord, Joseph Merrill, Timothy Merritt, George Pickering, Thomas Pierce, Jacob Sanborn, Joseph White.

Maine Conference: David Kilbourn, Stephen Lovell, Heman Nickerson, Elisha Streeter, Eleazar Wells, Ephraim Wiley.

Genesee Conference: Horace Agard, Israel Chamberlain, John Dempster, Isaac Grant, Loring Grant, James Hall, George Harmon, Jonathan Huestis, Josiah Keyes, Gideon Lanning, Ralph Lanning, Seth Mattison, Edmond O’Fling, Zechariah Paddock, Robert Parker, George Peck, Morgan Sherman, Manley Tooker.

Canada Conference: Samuel Belton, Wyatt Chamberlain, John Ryerson, William Ryerson, William Slater.

Pittsburgh Conference: Henry B. Bascom, Charles Elliott, Thornton Fleming, Henry Furlong, William Lambdin, Daniel Limerick, James Moore, David Sharp, Asa Shinn, William Stevens.

Ohio Conference: Russel Bigelow, John Brown, John Collins, Moses Crume, James B. Finley, Greenbury R. Jones, James Quinn, Leroy Swormstedt, John F. Wright, David Young, Jacob Young.

Missouri Conference: Jesse Haile, Andrew Monroe.

Illinois Conference: James Armstrong, Peter Cartwright, John Dew, Charles Holliday, John Strange, Samuel H. Thompson.

Kentucky Conference: William Adams, Peter Akers, Benjamin T. Crouch, George C. Light, Marcus Lindsey, Henry McDaniel, George W. McNelly, Thomas A. Morris, Jonathan Stamper, Richard Tidings, John Tivis.

Holston Conference: James Cumming, William S. Manson, Samuel Patton, William Patton, Elbert F. Sevier, Thomas Stringfield, Thomas Wilkerson.

Tennessee Conference: Joshua Butcher, James Gwin, John Holland, James McFerrin, William McMahon, Francis A. Owen, Robert Paine, Ashley B. Roszell, Finch P. Scruggs.

Mississippi Conference: John C. Burruss, Benjamin M. Drake, Thomas Griffin, Robert L. Kennon, Barnabas Pipkin, William Winans

South Carolina Conference: Robert Adams, James O. Andrew, William Arnold, Henry Bass, William Capers, Samuel Dunwody, Andrew Hamill, George Hill, Samuel K. Hodges, William M. Kennedy, Malcom McPherson, Lovick Pierce, Elijah Sinclair.

Virginia Conference: Moses Brock, Joseph Carson, Thomas Crowder, Peter Doub, John Early, Daniel Hall, Henry Holmes, Caleb Leach, Hezekiah G. Leigh, Lewis Skidmore.

Baltimore Conference: John Davis, Christopher Frye, Joseph Frye, Job Guest, James M. Hanson, Andrew Hemphill, Marmaduke Pierce, Nelson Reed, Stephen G. Roszel, Henry Smith, Beverly Waugh, Joshua Wells.

Philadelphia Conference: Walter Burrows, Ezekiel Cooper, David Daily, Manning Force, Solomon Higgins, William Leonard, Joseph Lybrand, Lawrence McCombs, Thomas Neal, Charles Pittman, John Potts, James Smith, John Smith, Lot Warfield, George Woolley.

After the organization of the conference the following address was received from the bishops, and referred to appropriate committees: —

“Dear Brethren: — It is our bounden duty to join in devout and grateful acknowledgments to the Father of mercies, whose gracious providence has preserved us in all our ways, and especially through the toils and dangers which have attended our journey from different and distant parts of the United States to this place. And while we acknowledge with gratitude the past interpositions of divine agency, let us unite in humble and fervent prayer for the influence of the Holy Spirit to guide us in all our deliberations, and to preserve us and the whole Church in the unity of the Spirit and in the bonds of peace.

“During the last four years it has pleased the great Head of the church to continue his heavenly benediction on our Zion. The work has been greatly extended; many new circuits and districts have been formed in different parts of our vast field of labor; but yet there is room, and pressing calls for much greater enlargement are constantly made.

“The great and extensive revivals of religion which we have experienced the last three years through almost every part of the work, furnish additional proof that God’s design in raising up the preachers called Methodists, in America, was to reform the continent, and ’spread Scripture holiness over these lands.’ These revivals have been the nurseries of the Church and of the ministry.

“Perhaps it deserves to be regarded as an extraordinary interposition of the divine mercy in behalf of the Church, that the year ending with this date has been peculiarly distinguished by the abundant outpourings of the Holy Spirit, and the increase both in the ministry and membership.

“While we are fully persuaded that, under God, our itinerant system has been the most effectual means of carrying on this great and blessed work, we recommend it to you to guard against whatever measures may have a tendency to weaken the energies of this system, or to locality in any department of the traveling ministry.

“Our missionary work has been greatly increased since the last session of the General Conference. Many parts of our extensive frontiers and newly acquired territories have received the gospel of salvation by the labors of missionaries. The importance and necessity of maintaining this efficient missionary system are sufficiently demonstrated by the blessed effects which it has produced. vast regions of country, almost entirely destitute of the gospel ministry, have by this means, and at a small expense from the missionary funds, been formed into circuits, and embraced in our regular work.

“Missions have been established in several Indian nations, most of which have succeeded beyond our highest expectations. And although, in some cases, we have had much to discourage us, and many difficulties to encounter and overcome in the prosecution of this work, we consider it of indispensable obligation to continue our efforts with increasing interest, for the salvation of this forlorn and afflicted people.

“Our attention has been called to South America, and to the American colony and surrounding nations in Africa. But hitherto we have not been able to send missionaries to either place.

“We invite the attention of the General Conference to this important subject. And while we cannot but regard the Missionary Society of the Methodist Episcopal Church as a very efficient auxiliary to our itinerant system, and happily calculated to diffuse the blessings of the gospel among the poor and destitute, we recommend it as a subject of inquiry whether it be necessary to adopt any further measures to render this important institution more extensive and harmonious in its membership, and more abundant and permanent in its resources; and if any, what measures will be best calculated to promote these desirable ends.

“Since the last session of this body, the ‘Sunday School Union and Tract Societies of the Methodist Episcopal Church have assumed an important and interesting character, and appear to promise great and lasting benefits to the community in general, and to the rising generation in particular. Your wisdom will dictate wherein it is necessary to give any additional direction and support to these benevolent and growing institutions.

“As the right of all the members of the Methodist Episcopal Church to trial and appeal, as prescribed in the form of Discipline, is sacredly secured by the acts of the General Conference of 1808, it may not be improper to institute an inquiry, at the present session, whether any rule in the Discipline may be construed or applied so as to militate against suck acts; and if so, remedy the evil.

“We invite your attention to a careful examination of the administration of the government, to see if it has been in accordance with the strictness and purity of our system.

“Through a combination of circumstances, we have failed to comply with the instructions of the last General Conference relative to the appointment of a delegate to the British conference. We deeply regret this failure. And it would be far more afflictive were we not assured that it has not been occasioned, in the least degree, by any want of affection and respect for our British brethren, or any indisposition to continue that medium of intercourse with them. We therefore recommend it to you to supply our lack of service by appointing, in such a manner as you shall judge proper, a representative and messenger to visit the British conference at its next session.

“May the God of peace be with you, and with the Church of our Lord Jesus Christ committed to your care.

“Yours with affection and esteem in the bonds of the gospel.”

There were several important matters which came up for adjudication before this conference, affecting both the doctrines and government of the Church, as well as the character of some individuals. The first — that which affected the doctrines of the Church — was presented in an appeal, by the Rev. Joshua Randell, from a decision of the New England conference, by which he had been expelled for holding and propagating doctrines inconsistent with our acknowledged standards

In denying that the transgressions of the law, to which we are personally responsible, have had any atonement made for them by Christ.

Maintaining that the infinite claims of justice upon the transgressor of the divine law may, upon the condition of the mere acts of the transgressor himself, be relinquished and given up, and the transgressor pardoned without an atonement.”

On these two specifications, both of which the defendant acknowledged that he held, the New England conference had first suspended him, and given him one year to reflect, and, if convinced of his error, to retract; and then, on finding that, at the end of the year, he persisted in his belief in these two propositions, and had endeavored to sustain them, both from the pulpit and the press, they had expelled him from the Church. From this solemn decision he had appealed to this General Conference, where he appeared in his own defense, and was allowed to vindicate his views to his entire satisfaction, it being stated in the journal of the General Conference that “he considered the case as having been fairly represented, and that he had nothing in particular to add.”

The respondent to Mr. Randell, on behalf of the New England conference, was the Rev. Wilbur Fisk, whose able argument carried a full conviction to the judgments of all, with one solitary exception, that the above propositions contained doctrines adverse to the doctrines of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and that the proceedings of the New England conference on the case had been legal and orderly. After a full, and, as was acknowledged by the defendant himself, an impartial examination and hearing of the case, the decree of the New England conference was affirmed by a vote of one hundred and sixty-four out of one hundred and sixty-five who were present and voted on the question, two members, at their own request, being excused from voting either way.

It appears that Bishop Hedding had been misrepresented in a paper published by the Reformers, called “Mutual Rights.” This arose out of an address which he delivered to the Pittsburgh conference, in Washington, Pa., August 22d, 1826, on the duty of its members in reference to the discussions with which some portions of the Church were then much agitated on the subject of a church reform, then in contemplation by a number of individuals. This address, which gave offense to those who were in favor of the proposed measures of the “Reformers,” so called, had been reported by one of the members of said conference, in the “Mutual Rights,” and sentiments imputed to Bishop Hedding which he disavowed, as injurious to his character. He had accordingly written to the “Mutual Rights,” contradicting the slanderous misrepresentation, and demanding reparation. This not being satisfactorily done by the offending brother, the bishop felt it to be his duty to present the subject to this General Conference, and to request that it might be investigated; and hence the whole affair was referred to the committee on the episcopacy, before whom the bishop, the writer of the offensive article, and the delegates of the Pittsburgh conference appeared; and after a full examination of the entire subject, they came to the following conclusion: That, after an interview with the person who wrote the article in the “Mutual Rights,” and the delegates of the Pittsburgh conference, in whose presence the bishop had delivered the address respecting which the offensive article had been written, and hearing all that could be said by the parties concerned, it was believed that the writer had injuriously misrepresented Bishop Hedding in what he had published. This the writer himself; after hearing the explanations of the bishop, frankly acknowledged, and acquiesced in the decision of the committee respecting its injustice, and the propriety of making reparation by publishing the report of the committee, which report concludes in these words: — “That the address of Bishop Hedding, as recollected by himself and the delegates of the Pittsburgh annual conference, not only was not deserving of censure, but such as the circumstances of the case rendered it his official duty to deliver.”

As an act of justice to Bishop Hedding, the entire report, as adopted by the conference, was published in the Christian Advocate and Journal, and may be seen in that paper for May 30, 1828.

Another subject of a more general character, and of no little importance, came up for consideration before this conference. We have already seen that the Canada brethren had manifested much dissatisfaction on account of the relation which they sustained to us, and the desire they had manifested at times to become independent. This desire, however, did not arise out of any dissatisfaction with the conduct of the brethren in the United States toward them, but chiefly from the opposition evinced by statesmen in Upper Canada to their being subject to the control of a foreign ecclesiastical head, over which the civil authorities of Canada could exercise no jurisdiction; and as most of the preachers in Canada were formerly from the United States, and all of them subject to an ecclesiastical jurisdiction in another nation, it was contended by the Canadian authorities that they had no sufficient guarantee for their allegiance to the crown of Great Britain, and to the civil regulations of Canada; and hence the Methodist ministers in Canada had suffered civil disabilities, and had not been allowed to celebrate the rites of matrimony, not even for their own members.

These arguments, and others of a similar character, had induced the Canada conference, which assembled in Hallowell, in 1824, when Bishops George and Hedding were both with them, to memorialize the several annual conferences in the United States on the subject of establishing an independent church in Upper Canada, requesting them to recommend the measure to this General Conference. Accordingly, the subject came up at this time by a memorial from the Canada conference, which was presented by its delegates, and referred to a committee.

The deliberations of the conference resulted in the adoption of the following preamble and report: —

“Whereas the Canada annual conference, situated in the province of Upper Canada, under a foreign government, have, in their memorial, presented to this conference the disabilities under which they labor, in consequence of their union with a foreign ecclesiastical government, and setting forth their desire to be set off as a separate church establishment: and whereas this General Conference disclaim all right to exercise ecclesiastical jurisdiction under such circumstances, except by mutual agreement: —

Resolved, therefore, by the delegates of the annual conferences in General Conference assembled, that the compact existing between the Canada annual conference and the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States be, and hereby is, dissolved by mutual consent.

That our superintendents or superintendent be, and hereby are, respectfully advised and requested to ordain such person as may be elected by the Canada conference a superintendent for the Canada connection.

That we do hereby recommend to our brethren in Canada to adopt the form of government of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States, with such modifications as their particular relations shall render necessary.

That we do hereby express to our Canada brethren our sincere desire that the most friendly feeling may exist between them and the connection of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States.

That the claims of the Canada conference on our Book Concern and chartered fund, and any other claims they may suppose they justly have, shall be left open for the negotiation and adjustment between the two connections.”

It was afterward resolved that the managers of our Missionary Society should he allowed to appropriate the sum of seven hundred dollars annually for the support of the Indian missions in Upper Canada.

There is an important principle involved in the above agreement to dissolve the connection which had so long subsisted between the Methodists in the United States and Upper Canada, which it seems expedient to explain. When the subject first came up for consideration it was contended, and the committee to whom it was first referred so reported, which report was approved of by a vote of the General Conference, that we had no constitutional right to set off the brethren in Upper Canada as an independent body, because the terms of the compact by which we existed as a General Conference made it obligatory on us, as a delegated body, to preserve the union entire, and not to break up the Church into separate fragments. Hence, to grant the prayer of the memorialists, by a solemn act of legislation, would be giving sanction to a principle, and setting a precedent for future General Conferences, of a dangerous character — of such a character as might tend ultimately to the dissolution of the ecclesiastical body, which would be, in fact and form, contravening the very object for which we were constituted a delegated conference, this object being a preservation, and not a destruction or dissolution of the union. These arguments appeared so forcible to the first committee, and to the conference, that the idea of granting them a separate organization on the principle of abstract and independent legislation was abandoned as altogether indefensible, being contrary to the constitutional compact.

But still feeling a desire to grant, in some way, that which the Canada brethren so earnestly requested, and for which they pleaded with much zeal, and even with most pathetic appeals to our sympathies, it was suggested by a very intelligent member of the General Conference, the late Bishop Emory, that the preachers who went to Canada from the United States went in the first instance as missionaries, and that ever afterward, whenever additional help was needed, Bishop Asbury and his successors asked for volunteers, not claiming the right to send them, in the same authoritative manner in which they were sent to the different parts of the United States and territories; hence it followed that the compact between us and our brethren in Canada was altogether of a voluntary character — we had offered them our services, and they had accepted them and therefore, as the time had arrived when they were no longer willing to receive or accept of our labors and superintendence, they had a perfect right to request us to withdraw our services, and we the same right to withhold them.

This presented the subject in a new and very clear light, and it seemed perfectly compatible with our powers as a delegated conference, and their privileges as a part of the same body, thus connected by a voluntary and conditional compact, either expressed or implied, to dissolve the connection subsisting between us, without any dereliction of duty or forfeiture of privilege on either part. It was on this principle alone that the above agreement was based.

It will be perceived, therefore, that this mutual agreement to dissolve the connection heretofore subsisting between the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States and the Canada conference cannot, with justice, be pleaded for setting off any one conference or any number of annual conferences in the United States, as their relations to each other and to the General Conference are quite dissimilar to that which bound the Canada conference to us. The conferences in the United States are all bound together by one sacred compact, and the severing any one from the main body would partake of the same suicidal character as to sever a sound limb from the body. The General Conference has no right, no authority, thus “to scatter, tear, and slay” the body which they are solemnly bound to keep together, to nourish, to protect, and to preserve in one harmonious whole. If an annual conference declare itself independent, out of the pale of the Methodist Episcopal Church, it is its own act exclusively, and therefore the responsibility rests upon itself alone, for which the General Conference cannot be held accountable, because it was not a participant in the separation. I do not say that the General Conference may not disown an annual conference, should it become corrupt in doctrine, in moral discipline, or in religious practice. Should, for instance, an annual conference, by an act of the majority of its members, abjure any of our essential doctrines, such as the atonement of Christ, or justification by faith, or should renounce the sacrament of baptism or the Lord’s supper, or strike from its moral code any of the precepts of morality recognized in our general rules, it might become the duty of the General Conference to interpose its high authority, and cut off; or at least to withdraw its fellowship from, the offending members. Yet such an act of excision, or of disnaturalization, if I may so call it, could be justified only as a dernier resort, when all other means had failed to reclaim the delinquents from their wanderings-just as the surgeon’s knife is to be withheld until mortification endangers the life of the patient, when death or amputation becomes the sole alternative. How else can the Church be preserved-supposing such a case of delinquency to exist — from a general putrefaction? For if a majority of an annual conference become heterodox in doctrine, or morally corrupt in practice, the minority cannot control them, cannot call them to an account, condemn, and expel them. And in this case, must the majority of the annual conferences, and perhaps also a respectable minority of that very annual conference, be compelled to hold these apostates from truth and righteousness in the bosom of their fellowship, to treat them in all respects as brethren beloved, and publicly to recognize them as such in their public and authorized documents? This would be a hard case indeed! an alternative to which no ecclesiastical body should be compelled to submit.

These remarks are made to prevent any misconception respecting the principle on which the above connection was dissolved, and to show that it forms no precedent for a dissolution of the connection now subsisting between the annual and General Conferences in the United States. Analogical arguments, to he conclusive, must be drawn from analogous facts or circumstances, and not from contrast, or opposing facts or circumstances. And the relation subsisting between the annual conferences in the United States to each other, and between them and the General Conference, stands in contrast with the relation which did subsist between the Canada and the General Conference; and therefore no analogical argument can be drawn from the mutual agreement by which this relation was dissolved in favor of dissolving the connection now subsisting between the annual conferences in the United States, by a solemn act of legislation on the part of the General Conference, except for the reasons above assigned; and those reasons, let it be remembered, make the contrast still greater between the two acts, and justify the difference of the procedure; for the dissolution of the compact between us and the Canada brethren from the jurisdiction only, Christian fellowship still subsisting — while the supposed act of excision would be a withdrawing of Christian fellowship from the offending members.

There were also other great principles of ecclesiastical economy involved in the above resolutions, which it may be well to develop and dwell upon for a moment.

It has been seen that the General Conference authorized our bishops, or any one of them, to ordain a bishop for Upper Canada. It was also provided that if such bishop should be so ordained his episcopal jurisdiction should be limited to Canada — that he should not be allowed to exercise his functions in the United States. In favor of both of these positions, namely, the ordaining a bishop for Canada, and then restricting him in his episcopal functions to that country, or the not allowing him to exercise them in the United States, the following precedents were adduced

It was pleaded that the bishops of England ordained bishops for the United States exclusively: that when Wesley and others ordained Dr. Coke, it was only for the United States: and hence neither of these functionaries was allowed to exercise his episcopal powers in Great Britain. Here, then, were precedents, from our own and another church, both for consecrating men for other countries, and for restricting them, in the exercise of their official duties, to the countries for which they were designated in their certificates of ordination. It was furthermore stated — and truly too — that when it was contemplated to consecrate the late Rev. Freeborn Garrettson a bishop for Nova Scotia and the West Indies, it was proposed to withhold from him the privilege of being a bishop, by virtue of that election and consecration, in the United States.

And as to ordaining men for foreign countries, on special occasions, church history was full of examples, all which might be adduced as sound precedents for the authority conferred upon our bishops in regard to ordaining a man on whom the choice of the Canada conference might fall for their superintendent.

There was one other subject disposed of at this conference, more important, in many respects, than either of those already mentioned, inasmuch as it involved principles and measures which must, had they been carried into effect, have produced a radical change in both the legislative and executive departments of our church government, and were therefore considered revolutionary in their character and tendency.

That this subject may be placed in such a point of light as to be clearly understood, it is necessary to enter into some historical details.

We have already seen that there had been considerable uneasiness manifested in some portions of our Church on the subject of a lay representation in the General Conference. At first the discussions upon this subject were confined to private circles, though some of the traveling and more of the local preachers, as well as a few of the lay members, had been and were now of the opinion that such a representation ought to be granted. At length, however, those who were most zealous for this measure commenced a periodical publication, called the “Wesleyan Repository,” in which they began, at first with apparent moderation, to discuss the principle of lay representation. The headquarters of this publication, which was commenced in 1820, were Trenton, in the state of New Jersey; and though its editor was known, the greater portion of its writers appeared under the mask of fictitious signatures, by which they eluded individual responsibility. The strictures upon our church government, which became uncommonly severe, were more calculated to irritate the passions than to convince the judgment, and they soon degenerated into personal attacks, in which some of our bishops and chief ministers were dragged before the public in a way to injure their character, and consequently to circumscribe their usefulness. And though we had a monthly periodical, it was thought, by the most judicious among our ministers and people, that its columns ought not to be occupied with such a thriftless controversy, much less as the writers in the Repository lay concealed beneath fictitious signatures; and moreover, instead of sober argument, they frequently resorted to biting sarcasm, to personal criminations, and to a caricature of some of those institutions which we, as a church, had long held sacred. Though it was believed that most of the writers in the Repository were local preachers and laymen, yet it was known that several of the traveling preachers themselves were favorable to the proposed innovation, and therefore lent the weight of their influence in its behalf by writing occasionally for its columns.

With a view to concentrate their strength and harmonize their views as much as possible, the friends of the innovating measures formed a “Union Society” in the city of Baltimore, elected officers and a committee of correspondence, inviting all who were with them in sentiment to form auxiliary societies throughout the country, that there might be a general cooperation among the advocates of lay representation.

Things went on in this way until near the meeting of the General Conference in 1824, when the male members of the Church in the city of Baltimore, which had now become the center of operations for the “Reformers,” with a view to allay, if possible, the heat of party spirit, were called together for the purpose of attempting to effect a compromise. This effort grew out of the fact that there were many conflicting opinions among those who were favorable to “reform,” and a strong desire among the warm friends of the Church to avert the calamities of a separation, which they saw must inevitably result from this feverish excitement, unless some pacific measures could be adopted to cool it down. In this meeting it was proposed, as the basis of the compromise, to memorialize the General Conference on the subject of a lay delegation, provided the question of a right to such representation were waived, and the privilege should be asked on the ground of expediency alone. This was assented to by the leading men among the “Reformers,” and a memorial was accordingly prepared in accordance with these views, the part relating to lay representation being expressed in the following words