Nathan Bangs · 26 of 28

Chapter 9. The General Conference of 1828. · Part 2

“Under these views we have been led to turn our attention to the subject of a lay delegation to the General Conference. In presenting this subject to your consideration, we would waive all that might be urged on the natural or abstract right of the membership to this privilege. We are content to admit that all governments, whether civil or ecclesiastical, ought to be founded, not on considerations growing out of abstract rights, but on expediency, that being always the right government which best secures the interests of the whole community. With regard to the expediency of the measure, then, we may urge that such a delegation would bring into the conference much information with regard to the temporal affairs of the Church which the ministry cannot well be supposed to possess. They would feel less delicacy in originating and proposing measures for the relief of the preachers’ families than the preachers themselves, as they could not be subjected thereby to the imputation of interested motives, and they would, by being distributed everywhere among the membership, and, by their personal exertions and influence, the success of such measures. and awaken, more generally than has hitherto been done, the attention of the Methodist community to the great interests of the Church.

“We are aware of the constitutional objections to this change in our economy. We know that you are clearly prohibited, by the very first article of the constitution under which you act, from adding to the conference any delegation not provided for in that rule; but we believe that an Opinion expressed by the conference, and approved by the episcopacy, would induce the annual conferences to make the necessary alteration in the constitution: and we submit the consideration of the whole matter to the calm and deliberate attention which we are persuaded its importance demands, and which we do not doubt it will receive, determined cheerfully and cordially to submit to your decision.”

During the session of the conference in May, 1824, some of the “Reformers,” becoming dissatisfied with the principles of the compromise, formed a separate society, and claimed a representation in the General Conference as a natural and social right, deprecating its rejection by the General Conference as an evidence of a spiritual despotism utterly unworthy the character of the ministry of Jesus Christ. To effect their objects with the greater certainty, they immediately issued proposals for establishing a new periodical, called “Mutual Rights,” its title being well calculated to impress the unwary reader with the erroneous idea, so much harped upon in those days of agitation, that the “Reformers” were the exclusive advocates of the “rights” of the lay members of our Church.

The formation of these societies, and the publication of this periodical, in which most inflammatory declamations were poured forth against our ministry and established usages, were considered, by the more sober and thinking part of our community, as incorporating the very schism in the Church which they deprecated as one of the worst evils with which it could be afflicted, except, indeed, its inundation by immorality. The fate, however, of those measures, so far as the General Conference was concerned, has been seen in the account given of the doings of the General Conference in 1824. The prayer of the memorialists was rejected, and the ground of right to a lay representation denied.

It is not necessary to trace the history of this unpleasant affair, in all its minutiae and various ramifications over different parts of the country, from that time until the secession was fully consummated, and a separate community established. Suffice it therefore to say, that matters went on from bad to worse, until it became necessary, in the opinion of those who watched over the Church in Baltimore, to save it and its institutions from dissolution, to call the malcontents to an account for their conduct.

At the Baltimore conference, in 1827, the Rev. D. B. Dorsey, who had connected himself with the “Reformers,” was arraigned before his conference for recommending and circulating the “Mutual Rights;” and during the course of his trial he avowed such principles, and made such declarations respecting his independent rights, as could not be approved of by the conference; and they therefore requested, as the mildest punishment they could inflict, the bishop to leave him without an’ appointment for one year. From this decision be took an appeal to the General Conference; but, instead of waiting patiently until this ultimate decision could he had, he loudly censured the acts of the Baltimore conference in reference to his case, through the columns of “Mutual Rights,” thus appealing from the constituted authorities of the Church to the popular voice, invoking from this very equivocal tribunal a decision in his favor. All this had a tendency to widen the breach, and to make a reconciliation the more hopeless.

One of the leading champions of this “reform” was the Rev. Nicholas Snethen, who had been a very useful and influential traveling preacher for many years, but was now located, and lived in the neighborhood of Baltimore. He was recognized as the writer of several articles, under fictitious signatures, in the “Wesleyan Repository” and “Mutual Rights,” in which severe strictures were made upon our economy; and now, since action had commenced against the malcontents in the Baltimore conference, by which it was foreseen that others, implicated in the same warfare against the authorities and usages of the Church, would be called to answer for their conduct, Mr. Snethen avowed himself the author of these pieces, vauntingly placed himself in front of the reforming ranks, shouting, “Onward! brethren; onward!” pledging himself to suffer or triumph with them-thus exhibiting a spirit of moral heroism worthy of a better cause, and more befitting other times than those which called only for a bloodless warfare.

This conduct, however, brought forth a champion from the ranks of the local preachers, who, as he himself acknowledged, had been friendly to some slight changes in the structure of our church government, provided such changes should be thought expedient by the General Conference, and could be effected by pacific measures, without producing a convulsion in the body. He had long been an intimate and personal friend of Mr. Snethen, and therefore it was with some reluctance that he yielded to the paramount duty of sacrificing his personal friendship for the purpose of defending the “ancient landmarks,” and of placing himself in opposition to the innovations in contemplation by the “Reformers.” I allude to Doctor Thomas E. Bond, of Baltimore. In 1827 he published his “Appeal to the Methodists, in Opposition to the Changes proposed in their Church Government,” which was prefaced by an epistolary dedication to the Rev. Nicholas Snethen. This appeared to take Mr. Snethen and his friends by surprise, as they seemed to expect least of all such an appeal from the source whence it came, while it acted as a charm upon the minds of those who loved the institutions and prayed for the perpetual union and prosperity of the Church. The able manner in which Dr. Bond treated the subject, and refuted the arguments and exposed the pretensions of the “Reformers,” showed that he had thoroughly digested the questions at issue, had “counted the cost,” and was prepared to abide the results of the contest. Having, therefore, balanced the weight of the arguments for and against the proposed innovation, and fully made up a judgment in favor of the Church and its institutions, he wrote from the fullness of his heart, and the following passage from his “Appeal” will show the confident manner in which he anticipated the result of this severe and long-protracted struggle. After giving the outlines of our church government, and the general system of itinerant operations, he introduces the following spirited remarks

“It is this system of church government, so simple in its structure and efficient in its operation, so tested by experience and justified by success, and, withal, so sanctified in the feelings and affections of our people by the endearing associations with which it stands connected, that we are now called upon, not to modify, but radically to change; not to mend in some of its less important details, but to alter in its fundamental principles, and to substitute for it a speculative scheme of government, inapplicable to our circumstances, and therefore impossible to be effected; — a scheme founded on abstract notions of natural rights, but which none of its advocates have attempted to exhibit in any visible or tangible shape or form, and therefore they have carefully avoided the discussion of the parts most important in any system, namely, its practicability and expediency. Happy for us, the scheme is not new. In Europe it has had its day of noise and strife, and has ceased to agitate the Church; and in this country Mr. O’Kelly started it more than thirty years ago, left the Church, and drew off several of the preachers with him. He lived to see the ruins of the visionary fabric he had labored to erect, and to mourn over the desolation which he had brought upon that part of the vineyard, where, as a Methodist preacher, he so faithfully and usefully labored, but which he had afterward turned out to be ravaged and destroyed by “republican Methodism.” The formidable phalanx now arrayed against us may, it is feared, do us much harm, but we will take protection under that strong Arm which has heretofore defended us. Hitherto our history has shown that the great Head of the church had appointed us for a special work in his vineyard, and that he superintended and directed the labor, opening the way before our ministry, qualifying and sustaining them in their arduous labors, under circumstances which would have discouraged any but such as were assured of divine support, and who were prepared to believe in hope against hope. Great conflicts await us, but out of all the Lord will deliver us: while he is with us, the more we are oppressed, the more we shall multiply and grow. Let us be faithful to our calling — let us watch unto prayer. The present revolutionary scheme of our disaffected members will share the fate of all the similar projects which have preceded it. Our children will read of it in history, but, ere they take our places in the Church, the troubled waters shall have heard the voice of Him who says to the winds and the waves, Be still, and they obey his voice.”

This strong appeal, written throughout with a spirit and a style of argument which did honor to the head and heart of its author, exerted a most salutary influence upon all who had not fully committed themselves to the principles and measures of the “Reformers.” While it drew the lines more distinctly which divided the contending parties, it tended to cement closer together those who had so long cherished the institutions of Methodism, and to arm them with weapons of defense. Hitherto there had been some neutralists, who were looking on, not indeed with cold indifference, but with an anxious suspense, watching the result of the movements, and weighing the respective arguments, for the purpose of forming an intelligent decision. These acknowledged themselves much indebted to Dr. Bond for throwing additional light upon this subject, and thus saving them from lapsing into the sickly spirit of “reform:” and the Appeal doubtless had the greater weight for having been issued from the local instead of the traveling ministry, because it was supposed that the former had identified themselves more generally than the latter with the reforming party.

In the mean time a pamphlet had been issued, as was erroneously supposed at the time under the sanction of the Union Society, by Rev. Alexander McCaine, in which he attempted to prove that surreptitious means had been used in the establishment of our Church; that our episcopacy was spurious, gotten lip against the wishes and without the knowledge of Mr. Wesley thus impugning the motives and impeaching the honesty of such men as Coke, Asbury, Whatcoat, and all those venerable men who composed the General Conference of 1784, and assisted in the organization of our Church. This appeared to be the climax of absurdities in the doings of the adverse party, and to reveal designs upon the integrity and the very existence of our episcopacy, and all those regulations and usages which connected themselves with that feature of our Church economy, which could not be any longer tolerated with impunity. It was therefore thought, by the friends of order and the advocates of our Church authorities, that the time had fully come for action — for such action as should test the solidity of our ecclesiastical structure, and the permanency of its foundation.

Indeed, these ungenerous attacks upon the best of men, most of whom were now dead, and therefore could not speak for themselves, aroused the spirits of those who had hitherto stood aloof from this controversy, and decided some who had been supposed to be friendly to the spirit of “reform” against the measure, inasmuch as they judged — most conclusively, it is thought — that a cause which could enlist in its behalf such unjustifiable means of attack and defense, could not be holy and good. This brought forth the late Bishop Emory, who was at that time an assistant book agent; and the Defense of our Fathers” proved his competency to defend those venerable men from the aspersions thrown upon them by the author of the “History and Mystery of Methodist Episcopacy.” This masterly defense of the men who organized our Church, and of ‘he organization itself, its principles, measures, and results, procured for its author that need of praise that is justly due to a faithful son of the Church, to an acute and able reasoner, and to one whose industry in collecting and arranging facts for the basis of his argumentation evinced the depth and accuracy of his research. This production was therefore hailed with delight by the friends of the Church, and tended, with some others of a similar character, published about the same time, to prove that the theory of the “Reformers” was a visionary scheme, indefensible by any arguments drawn from Scripture, from the ancient records of the Church, from the analogy of things, or from any improper means used in either the organization or naming of the Methodist Episcopal Church. This complete refutation of the groundless assumptions of Mr. McCaine’s book was read with great avidity, and procured for its author the thanks of all who wished well to our Zion.

But while these things tended to calm the fears of the timid, to confirm the wavering in the truth, and to strengthen the hearts of all who had heretofore reposed in the wisdom and integrity of our fathers in the gospel, they by no means satisfied those who appeared bent on carrying their measures at all hazards. On the contrary, their leaders seemed to struggle hard under disappointment, and to redouble their efforts in rallying their forces, and preparing them for victory or defeat, whenever the warfare should terminate. They had heretofore most evidently calculated on carrying with them many who now took a decided stand against them. This was a source of severe disappointment. These showed, when the alternative was presented to their choice, that they loved Methodism better than its proposed substitute. The former they had tried, and found savory and healthful; the latter was an untried experiment, and judging from the fruit it had already produced, that it was not “good to make one wise, they declined the proffered boon as unworthy of their acceptance.

But, as before remarked, things had arrived at such a crisis in the city of Baltimore that it became necessary, in the opinion of those to whom the oversight of the Church was committed, to call some of the most prominent lenders in the work of “reform” to an account before the proper tribunals. Hence eleven local preachers and twenty-five lay members were regularly cited to appear before the preacher in charge of the Baltimore station, the Rev. James M. Hanson, to answer to the charge of “inveighing against our Discipline,” “speaking evil of our ministers,” and of violating the rule “which prohibits the members of the Church from doing harm, and requires them to avoid evil of every kind.”

This general charge was amply sustained by a reference to the Constitution of the Union Society, by numerous quotations from “Mutual Rights,” and from other sources. The delinquents were therefore found guilty, the local preachers were suspended, and the lay members expelled. While, however, these transactions were pending, before any decision was had, Dr. Bond once more threw himself in the gap, and endeavored to avert the suspended blow by acting the part of a mediator between the parties, and, if possible, thereby to prevent the storm from bursting on their heads. His efforts, however, were unavailing; the trials proceeded, and the penalty of the Discipline was finally inflicted, though with great reluctance, upon all those who had been summoned to trial, with the exception of two lay members.

One of the specifications which was adduced to sustain the general charge was their advising and requesting the publication of the “History and Mystery of Methodist Episcopacy;” but as it was found, on further examination, that its author alone was responsible for writing and publishing that work, this specification was withdrawn in reference to all the accused except Alexander McCaine; and he therefore was summoned before another committee of local preachers, tried separately, found guilty, and accordingly suspended.

As the district conference of local preachers had been dissolved, the trial of those who had been suspended by the committee of inquiry was brought before the quarterly meeting conference of the Baltimore station. But before the trial proceeded to an issue, Dr. J. C. Green, of Virginia, volunteered his services as a mediator between the parties, and the trial was postponed for the purpose of giving ample time to test the result of the negotiation. It was, however, unavailing, and the trial proceeded, and terminated in finding guilty, and the consequent expulsion, of the accused local preachers; and as they did not appeal, as they might, to the annual conference, they were finally considered no longer members of the Methodist Episcopal Church.

To the lay members who had been found guilty before the act of expulsion was consummated, and with a view, if possible, to save himself and those concerned from the sad alternative which awaited them, Mr. Hanson sent each of the persons the following letter:—

“Baltimore, Nov. 23,1827.

“Brother: You are hereby informed that the committee appointed to investigate the charges and specifications lately preferred against you as a member of the Union Society, have, by a unanimous decision, found you guilty of said charges, together with the first and second specifications.

“Most willingly, my brother, would I now dispense with the painful duty which devolves upon me, could I do so as an honest man, and without abandoning the interests of the Church. Or had I cause to believe that the course now about to be pursued would lead you to make suitable reparation to that Church whose ministers and discipline you have assailed and misrepresented, and to abstain from the like offenses against the peace and harmony of said Church in future, it would tend more than any other consideration to diminish the painfulness of the obligation which my present situation imposes upon me. For, be assured, whatever my own opinion may be in regard to the course you may have pursued, as a member of t Union society, I most devoutly wish and pray that you may be led by the good Spirit of God to take those steps which will leave you still in the possession of all the rights and privileges of church fellowship.

“You must be considered as the arbiter of your own destiny, my brother, in this matter. Your brethren of the committee, men who fear God, whose characters stand fair in the Church, and who have disclaimed all feeling of personal hostility against you, have pronounced you, as a member of the Union society, guilty of endeavoring to sow dissensions in the society or Church of which you are a member, and of speaking evil of the ministers of said Church. To this conclusion they have been conducted by a careful and patient examination of the documents put into their hands as evidence in the case. You must, therefore, plainly perceive, that the only ground on which expulsion from the Church can be avoided is an abandonment of the Union Society, with assurances that you will give no aid in future to any publication or measure calculated to cast reproach upon our ministers, or occasion breach of union among our members.

“Be good enough then, my brother, to answer in writing the following plain and simple questions: —

Will you withdraw forthwith from the Union Society?

Will you in future withhold your aid from such publications and measures as are calculated to cast reproach upon our ministers, and produce breach of union among our members?

“Yours, &c. James M. Hanson.

“P.S. Your answer will be expected in the course of four or five days.”

After allowing sufficient time for deliberation, and receiving no answer, nor discovering any symptoms of reconciliation from any quarter, Mr. Hanson was compelled to the act, so exceedingly painful to an administrator of discipline, of pronouncing them excommunicated from the Methodist Episcopal Church. Thus was the separation, so long and so painfully anticipated, notwithstanding all the means used to prevent it, finally consummated, and the Church left to bleed under the wounds afflicted upon her by those whom she had once delighted to honor.

In the mean time similar proceedings were had in other places. We have already seen that the Union Society of Baltimore recommended that societies of the like character should be organized wherever a sufficient number ‘of persons could be found friendly to the measures of the “Reformers.” This recommendation had been complied with in a number of places; and wherever these societies existed, agitations and commotions, similar to those in Baltimore, had been the painful results. Hence, in the states of Tennessee and North Carolina, several members of these Union Societies had been tried and expelled from the Church for their refractory conduct, and for inveighing against the discipline and aspersing the character of the ministers of the Methodist Episcopal Church. And in addition to those eleven local preachers and twenty-two laymen who were expelled in Baltimore, about fifty females, friends of the excommunicated brethren, addressed a letter to the ruling preacher, Mr. Hanson, expressing their desire to withdraw from the Church, which they were permitted to do without further trial.

It may be necessary here to correct an erroneous opinion, which prevailed to some extent at the time, respecting the cause of complaint against the “Reformers,” as they chose all along to call themselves.

Whoever will consult the writings of those days, in reference to this subject, will find complaints, on the part of the “Reformers,” that an attempt was made, by the advocates for the present order of things, to suppress inquiry, to abridge the freedom of speech and of the press, and that these trials were instituted, in part at least, as a punishment for exercising this freedom on the subjects that were then litigated. This was a great mistake. It was for an abuse of this freedom, for indulging in personal criminations, injurious to individual character, that the delinquents were tried and finally condemned. This will appear manifest to every person who will impartially inspect the charges, the specifications, and the testimony selected from the “Mutual Rights” to support the accusations, and also from the report of the General Conference on petitions and memorials. It was, indeed, expressly is avowed at the time by the prosecutors, and by all who had written on the subject, that they wished to suppress freedom of inquiry, either in writing or speaking, provided only that the debaters would confine their discussions to an investigation of facts and arguments, without impeaching the character and motives of those from whom they dissented.

The expelled members in the city of Baltimore immediately formed themselves into a society, under the tide of “Associated Methodist Reformers;” and in the month of November, 1827 a convention assembled in that city, composed of ministers and lay delegates who had been elected by the state conventions and Union Societies. This convention prepared a memorial to the General Conference. The memorial was presented, read, and referred to a committee, and the following report, drawn up by the late Bishop Emory, and unanimously adopted by the conference, will show the result:

“The committee to whom were referred certain petitions and memorials, for and against a direct lay and local representation in the General Conference, submit the following report: —

“Of those which propose this revolution in our economy, that which has been received from a convention of certain local preachers and lay members, held in the city of Baltimore in November last, is presumed to embody the general views — of those who desire this change, and the chief arguments on which they rely. In framing a reply, in the midst of the various and pressing business of a General Conference, it cannot be reasonably expected that we should enter into minute details. Our remarks, of necessity, must be confined to a few leading topics, in condensed, yet, we trust, an intelligible form.

“As to the claim of right to the representation contended for, if it be a right which the claimants are entitled to demand, it must be either a natural or an acquired right. If a natural right, then, being founded in nature, it must be common to men, as men. The foundation of rights in ecclesiastical bodies, in our opinion, rests on a different basis. If it be alleged to be an acquired right, then it must have been acquired either in consequence of becoming Christians or of becoming Methodists. if the former, it devolves on the claimants to prove that this right is conferred by the holy Scriptures, and that they impose on us the corresponding obligation to grant the claim. That it is not’ forbidden’ in the New Testament is not sufficient; for neither is the contrary ‘forbidden.’ Or if the latter be alleged, namely, that it has been acquired in consequence of becoming Methodists, then it must have been either by some conventional compact, or by some obligatory principle in the economy of Methodism, to which, as then organized, the claimants voluntarily attached themselves. Neither of these, we believe, either has been or can be shown. And until one at least of these be shown, the claim of right, as such, cannot, we think, have been sustained.

“But do the memorialists mean to say that they are entitled to their claim, as a matter of right, against the judgment and the voice of a confessedly very large majority of their brethren, both of the ministry traveling and local, and also f the lay members? or that in these circumstances, on any ground, the claim ought to be admitted?. We Could not have believed them capable of so Strange a position, had they not declared the opinion as prevailing among themselves, ‘that the extension of the principle of representation to the members and the local preachers of the Church, by the General Conference, in compliance with a petition of this kind, at this conjuncture of time, would do more toward conciliating good feeling, restoring lost confidence among brethren, and confirming wavering minds, on all sides, than any other measure which can be adopted.’

“Now we ’speak advisedly’ when we say, that, in our judgment, such a measure, ‘at this conjuncture of time,’ would have a precisely contrary effect. The ministers assembled in General Conference, coming so recently from all parts of the great field of our missionary labors, and having had, throughout its whole extent, free and constant intercourse both with traveling and local preachers, and also with our lay members, are, certainly, at least as well prepared as the memorialists could have been to form L correct judgment on this point; and their calm and deliberate judgment is clearly and unhesitatingly as above-stated. This we believe, too, to be the true state of the question, after it has been so zealously discussed, on the side of the memorialists, for now nearly eight years’; during almost the whole of which time, until very recently, the discussion has been conducted almost exclusively by their own writers.

“We are aware that it has been assumed, by some at least of those writers, that this repugnance to the change proposed, on the part of so great a proportion both of our local preachers and lay members, to say nothing of the itinerant preachers, is the result of ignorance or want of intellect. This we conceive to be at least not a very modest assumption. Our opinion, on the contrary, is, while we freely admit that there are men of respectable information and intelligence who desire the change, that there are, nevertheless, very many more, of at least equally respectable information and intelligence, who are opposed to it, whether on the ground of right, of consistent practicability, or of utility.

“With regard to our local brethren particularly, it is our decided judgment that the privileges and advantages in which they have participated, in this country, have much rather exceeded than fallen short of what was contemplated in their institution, in the original economy of Methodism, as founded by the venerable Wesley, either in Europe or in America. We cannot but regret to perceive, that the addition of privilege to privilege seems only to have had the effect of exciting some of our brethren to claim still more and more; and now to begin to demand them as matters of positive and inherent right. We are happy to be able to say ’some’ only of our local brethren; for of the great body, even of themselves, we believe better things, though we thus speak. If; indeed, our members generally are tired of our missionary and itinerant system, and wish a change, then we could not be surprised if they should desire to introduce into our councils local men, whose views, and feelings, and interests, in the very nature and necessity of things, could not fail to be more local than those of itinerant men. And if to so powerful a local influence should be added, as would be added, the tendencies and temptations to locality which, in despite of all our better convictions, too often exist among ourselves, from domestic and personal considerations of a pressing character, we are free to confess our fears of the dangers to our itinerant economy which, in our opinion, could not fail, in time, to be the result. Now the preservation of the great itinerant system, unimpaired, in all its vital energies, we do conscientiously believe to be essential to the accomplishment of the grand original design of the economy of Methodism, to spread Scriptural holiness over these and other lands.