Nathan Bangs · 23 of 29

Chapter 15. The General Conference of 1840 · Part 1

This conference assembled in the city of Baltimore May 1, and was opened by Bishop Roberts by reading a portion of the Holy Scriptures and prayer. John A. Collins, of the Baltimore conference, was appointed secretary, and James B. Houghtaling, of the Troy, and Thomas B. Sargent, of the Baltimore conferences, assistant secretaries. The following is a list of the delegates who were present: —

New York Conference: Nathan Bangs, C. W. Carpenter, Joshua Holdich Samuel Luckey, Daniel Ostrander, Fitch Reed, Phineas Rice, Marvin Richardson, Peter P. Sandford, Nicholas White.

New England Conference: Phineas Crandall, Jotham Horton, A. D. Merrill, Joshua A. Merrill, Orange Scott, E. W. Stickney, Fred Upham.

Main Conference: Moses Hill, B. Jones, W. C. Larrabee, D. B. Randall, Ezekiel Robinson.

New Hampshire Conference: John F. Adams, Charles D. Cahoon, Schuyler Chamberlain, Jared Perkins, Elihu Scott, James Templeton.

Troy Conference: J. B. Houghtaling, Noah Levings, Sherman Minor, Truman Seymour, Charles Sherman, Tobias Spicer.

Pittsburgh Conference: C. Cook, George S. Holmes, Robert Hopkins, Thomas M. Hudson, J. G. Sansom.

Erie Conference: John C. Ayers, John Chandler, H. Kingsley, B. O. Plimpton, David Preston.

Black River Conference: G. Baker, S. Chase, John Dempster, George Gary.

Oneida Conference: Elias Bowen, George Harman Zechariah Paddock, George Peck, D. A. Shephard.

Michigan Conference: Henry Colclazer, E. H. Pilcher, A. Poe, John H. Power.

Genesee Conference: Asa Abel, Jonas Dodge, A. N. Filmore, Glezin Filmore, J. Parker, Manley Tooker.

Ohio Conference: William B. Christie, S. Hamilton, L. L. Hamline, William H. Raper, R. O. Spencer, John F. Wright, Jacob Young.

Missouri Conference: Andrew Munroe, Thomas Johnson.

Illinois Conference: P. Aker, Peter Cartwright, John Clarke, Hooper Crews, J. T. Mitchell, S. H. Thompson.

Kentucky Conference: Henry B. Bascom, Thomas N. Ralston, Jonathan Stamper, George W. Taylor, J. S. Tomlinson.

Indiana Conference: E. R. Ames, A. Eddy, C. W. Ruter, Allen Wiley, A. Wood.

Holson Conference: Samuel Patton.

Tennessee Conference: A. T. Driskill, John B. McFerrin, S. S. Moody, Robert Paine, F. E. Pitts.

Arkansas Conference: John Harrell, John C. Parker.

Mississippi Conference: Benjamin M. Drake, William Winans.

Alabama Conference: E. Callaway, E. V. Ivert, William Murrah.

Georgia Conference: Ignatius A. Few, Samuel K. Hodges, William J. Parks, Lovick Pearce.

South Carolina Conference: Charles Betts, Bond English, Hugh A. C. Walker, William M. Wightman.

North Carolina Conference: Moses Brock, J. Jameson.

Virginia Conference: Thomas Crowder, John Early, William A. Smith.

Baltimore Conference: Samuel Brison, John A. Collins, J. A. Gere, John Miller, S. G. Roszel, H. Slicer, N. Wilson.

Philadelphia Conference: Solomon Higgins, Joshua Lybrand, Levi Scott, Matthew Sorin, Henry White.

New Jersey Conference: Manning Force, R. W. Petherbridge, C. Pitman, John S. Porter, Isaac Wilmer.

This conference was favored with the presence of the Rev. Robert Newton, as a representative from the Wesleyan Methodist conference, and the brethren Joseph Stinson, president of the Canada conference, John and Egerton Ryerson, members of said conference, John Harvard, chairman of the Lower Canada district, and Matthew Richie, principal of the Upper Canada Conference Academy.

These were severally introduced to the conference, and were recognized as brethren beloved, and worthy representatives of Wesleyan Methodism, both in Europe and British America.

Owing to the indisposition of Bishop Soule, who, in consequence thereof, was not present until some days after the conference opened, the address of the bishops was not presented until about a week after the conference commenced its sessions. Though long, yet as it presents the particular views of the episcopacy on several important points, the reader will, no doubt, be pleased to have it preserved in this permanent form. It is as follows: —

“Address of the Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church to the General Conference, held in Baltimore, May, 1840

“Dear Brethren, — The meeting of this solemn and constitutional body, just at the opening of the second century of Wesleyan Methodism, is a peculiarly appropriate occasion for reviewing the rise and progress of that great and blessed revival of pure Christianity, which, commencing with the labors of that eminent man of God, the Rev. John Wesley, has, during the last centennial period, spread over large portions of our globe, conveying the blessings of the gospel salvation to millions of the human race. It is highly proper for us, at such a period, and under such circumstances, to direct our careful attention to the measures and means which, under God, have been accompanied with such auspicious results. It will appear, it is presumed, upon such an examination, that human policy has had less to do in the origin, progress, and final accomplishment of this great work, than in any other important and extensive enterprise since the days of the apostles. The rise, and progress, and ultimate success of Methodism are marked with the special openings and interpositions of the providence of Almighty God. And although we are a hundred years removed from that era of precious memory when this great light first shone forth from Oxford, we look back through every successive period of its advancement, deeply impressed with this sentiment, ‘Not unto us, O Lord; not unto us, but unto thy name give glory!’ We have stood still to see the salvation of God, or moved forward as his providence opened the way.

“In the progress of this great work on both sides of the Atlantic many instruments have been successfully employed, who would never have been engaged in the enterprise had their selection depended merely on the wisdom of men.

“In England, while a Wesley and Fletcher, with a few kindred spirits, were wielding the mighty artillery of gospel truth, with all the panoply of various and profound science and literature, made mighty by the arm of God to the pulling down of the strongholds of error and infidelity, a considerable number of unlettered men, taken from ordinary occupations, and with no pretensions to any extraordinary human qualifications, with such weapons as the Holy Spirit had supplied, were marching through the kingdom, attacking the citadel of the heart, and bringing thousands into a happy allegiance to the Captain of their salvation. The same order of things is observable from the commencement till the present time. It has pleased God, from time to time, to raise up men, in different parts of these States, who were endued with extraordinary intellectual powers, and those powers disciplined to sound argument by a thorough education. In these men the Church has found able defenders of her doctrines and order; and although some of them have fallen asleep, they still speak — while others, in the order of Providence, have been raised up in their stead. Thus we have a host of the venerable dead, united with a succession of living witnesses, and all set for the defense of the gospel of Christ.

“But had only such distinguished instruments been employed in preaching the gospel on this continent since the first Wesleyan missionaries crossed the Atlantic, and commenced their labors in the colonies, what, in all human probability, would have been the state of the church in these lands at the present day?

“How many thousands and tens of thousands have been converted to God by the instrumentality of the preaching of men who have never explored the regions of science and literature-and who, having ’ fought their way through,’ are now resting in Abraham’s bosom! And what living multitudes bear witness to the efficiency of the same means, by the influence of the Holy Spirit, in bringing them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God! Indeed, if we carefully examine the history of the church, from the days of the apostles to the present time, at what period of her progress shell we find her amply supplied with ministers combining in themselves a profound knowledge of science and literature, and genuine piety, and giving proof, by the sanctity of their lives, and the fruits of their labors, that they were truly called of God to the work of the ministry?

“The probability is, that one chief cause of the great deficiency of evangelical ministers in the Church of Christ is the neglect of that solemn command, ‘Pray ye the Lord of the harvest that he would send forth more laborers.’

“Our venerable Wesley was fully convinced that the supreme authority to constitute and perpetuate the gospel ministry belonged only to the Author of salvation; and that those who gave the Scriptural evidence of being moved by the Holy Ghost to take upon them the work of the ministry were not to be rejected on account of a supposed deficiency in human acquirements.

“This truly evangelical sentiment, so strikingly illustrated in the history of the last century, should deeply impress us on the present occasion; and we should continue to adhere to it as one of the first principles in that system which is destined to evangelize the world. Our blessed Redeemer, after he had settled the constitution of his kingdom among men, — after he had accomplished the work of human redemption, — after he had risen from the dead in confirmation of his divine commission and authority, — and in his last interview with his disciples, just before his ascension into heaven-said, ‘All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth; go ye therefore and teach all nations.’ All the attending circumstances conspire to render this one of the most solemn and important declarations ever made to the world. It asserts the exclusive authority of Jesus Christ to select, and commission, and send forth the ministers of his gospel; an authority which, by right of office and government, he carried with him to the right hand of the Father, to be possessed and exercised till the final issue of his mediatorial kingdom. In strict conformity with this declaration of their divine Master, the apostolic college claimed no right to constitute ministers in succession; but sought, with earnest prayer and diligent examination of spiritual gifts, connected with holiness of life and usefulness in labor, whom God had called to this sacred employment; and in this is involved, as we believe, the true doctrine of apostolic succession.

“Keeping steadily in view this fundamental principle in the constitution and perpetuity of the Christian ministry, and in connection with it the unity of the church of Christ, we, as your general superintendents, have thought it proper to invite your deliberate attention to several subjects which, in our opinion, have a special claim to your consideration-earnestly praying that all things may be done, whether in word or deed, as in the immediate presence of God, and with an eye single to his glory.

“To preserve and strengthen the unity and peace of that great and increasing body of Christians and Christian ministers which you represent in this General Conference, and to devise and adopt measures for the more extensive and efficient promotion of the work of God in these lands and in foreign countries, ale the primary and very important objects of the institution of this body; and in these objects your counsel, your acts, and your prayers should concentrate. The connection of Wesleyan Methodists in all parts of the world should remain one united household, keeping the unity of the Spirit in the bonds of peace. One in doctrine, and in all the essential points of discipline, they should remain undivided in affection; and no minor considerations, growing out of difference of country, civil government, or other circumstances, should ever separate us, or interrupt our Christian fellowship. Laborers together with our brethren in Europe, and in the provinces, in the same vineyard of our common Lord, we should avail ourselves of every favorable opportunity, and especially of the occasion of the meeting of this body, to convey to them our Christian salutations, and the expressions of our undiminished affection and esteem.

“Although it may be safely admitted that every system, except that which has a just claim to inspiration, is capable of improvement, it is a wise and prudent maxim, as well in ecclesiastical as in civil jurisprudence, that principles and measures which have been long established and generally successful in their operations, should be changed or modified with the utmost caution. The history of communities sufficiently proves that innovations upon such a settled order of things are very liable to result in consequences unfavorable to the peace and well-being of society. This being the case, no ordinary considerations should induce us to ‘remove the ancient land-marks which our fathers have set up.’

“In a body so numerous as the Methodist connection, embracing twenty-eight annual conferences, extended over these United States and territories, and connected with different civil and domestic institutions, it is hardly expected that all should see ‘eye to eye’ relative to the meaning and administration of the discipline of the Church, or the fitness and expediency of measures which may be adopted in conformity to such a state of things.

“It has been the constant aim and united endeavor of your general superintendents to preserve uniformity and harmony in these respects; and, as far as practicable, prevent conflicting action in all the official bodies in the Church. But, although we record, with unfeigned gratitude to the God of all grace and consolation, the general peace, and harmony, and prosperity of the body, since your last session, it becomes our painful duty to lay before you some exceptions to this happy and prosperous condition.

“At the last session of the General Conference the subject of slavery and its abolition was extensively discussed, and vigorous exertions made to effect new legislation upon it. But, after a careful examination of the whole ground, aided by the light of past experience, it was the solemn conviction of the conference that the interests of religion would not be advanced by any additional enactments in regard to it.

“In your pastoral address to the ministers and people, at your last session, with great unanimity, and, as we believe, in the true spirit of the ministers of the peaceful gospel of Christ, you solemnly advised the whole body to abstain from all abolition movements, and from agitating the exciting subject in the Church. This advice was in perfect agreement with the individual as well as associated views of your superintendents. But had we differed from you in opinion, in consideration of the age, wisdom, experience, and official authority of the General Conference, we should have felt ourselves under a solemn obligation to be governed by your counsel. We have endeavored, both in our official administration, and in our private intercourse with the preachers and members, to inculcate the sound policy and Christian spirit of your pastoral address. And it affords us great pleasure to be able to assure you, that our efforts in this respect have been very generally approved, and your advice cordially received and practically observed in a very large majority of the annual conferences, as will more fully appear to you on the careful examination of the journals of those bodies for the last four years. But we regret that we are compelled to say, that in some of the northern and eastern conferences, in contravention of your Christian and pastoral counsel, and of your best efforts to carry it into effect, the subject has been agitated in such forms, and in such a spirit, as to disturb the peace of the Church. This unhappy agitation has not been confined to the annual conferences, but has been introduced into quarterly conferences, and made the absorbing business of self-created bodies in the bosom of our beloved Zion. The professed object of all these operations is to free the Methodist Episcopal Church from the “great moral evil of slavery,” and to secure to the enslaved the rights and privileges of free citizens of these United States. How far the measures adopted, and the manner of applying those measures, are calculated to accomplish such an issue, even if it could be effected by any action of ecclesiastical bodies, your united wisdom will enable you to judge.

“We cannot, however, but regard it as of unhappy tendency, that either individual members, or official bodies in the Church, should employ terms and pass resolutions of censure and condemnation on their brethren, and on public officers and official bodies over whose actions they have no legitimate jurisdiction. It requires un very extensive knowledge of human nature to be convinced that if we would convert our fellow-men from the error of their ways, we must address them, not in terms of crimination and reproach, but in the milder language of respect, persuasion, and kindness.

“It is justly due to a number of the annual conferences in which a majority, or a very respectable minority of the members are professedly abolitionists, to say, that they occupy a very different ground and pursue a very different course from those of their brethren who have adopted ultra principles and measures in this unfortunate, and, we think unprofitable controversy. The result of action had in such conferences on the resolution of the New England conference, recommending a very important change in our general rule on slavery, is satisfactory proof of this fact, and affords us strong and increasing confidence that the unity and peace of the Church are not to be materially affected by this exciting subject. Many of the preachers who were favorably disposed to the cause of abolition, when they saw the extent to which it was designed to carry these measures, and the inevitable consequences of their prosecution, came to a pause, reflected, and declined their cooperation. They clearly perceived that the success of the measures would result in the division of the Church; and for such an event they were not prepared. They have no disposition to criminate their brethren in the south, who are unavoidably connected with the institution of slavery, or to separate from them on that account. It is believed that men of ardent temperament, whose zeal may have been somewhat in advance of their knowledge and discretion, have made such advances in the abolition enterprise as to produce a reaction. A few preachers and members, disappointed in their expectations, and despairing of the success of their cause in the Methodist Church, have withdrawn from our fellowship, and connected themselves with associations more congenial with their views and feelings; and others, in similar circumstances, may probably follow their example. But we rejoice in believing that these secessions will be very limited, and that the great body of Methodists in these states will continue, as they have been, one and inseparable. The uniformity and st ability of our course should be such, as to let all candid and thinking men see that the cause of secessions from us is not a change of our doctrine or moral discipline — no imposition of new terms of communion — no violation of covenant engagements on the part of the Church. It is a matter worthy of particular notice, that these who have departed from us do hot pre tend that any material change in our system, with respect either to doctrine, discipline, or government, has taken place since they voluntarily united themselves with us. And it is ardently to be desired that no such innovation may be effected, as to furnish any just ground for such a pretension.

“The experience of more than half a century, since the organization of our ecclesiastical body, will afford us many important lights and landmarks, pointing out what is the safest and most prudent policy to be pursued in our onward course as regards African slavery in these States; and especially in our own religious community. This very interesting period of our history is distinguished by several characteristic features having a special claim to our consideration at the present time, particularly in view of the unusual excitement which now prevails on the subject, not only in the different Christian churches, but also in the civil body. And, first, our general rule on slavery, which forms a part of the constitution of the Church, has stood from the beginning unchanged, as testamentary of our sentiments on the principle of slavery and the slave trade. And in this we differ in no respect from the sentiments of our venerable founder, or from those of the wisest and most distinguished statesmen and civilians of our own, and other enlightened and Christian countries. Secondly, In all the enactments of the Church relating to slavery, a due and respectful regard has been had to the laws of the states, never requiring emancipation in contravention of the civil authority, or where the laws of the states would not allow the liberated slave to enjoy his freedom. Thirdly, The simply holding or owning slaves, without regard to circumstances, has at no period of the existence of the Church subjected the master to excommunication. Fourthly, Rules have been made from time to time, regulating the sale and purchase and holding of slaves, with reference to the different laws of the states where slavery is tolerated; which, upon the experience of the great difficulties of administering them, and the unhappy consequences both to masters and servants, have been as often changed or repealed. These important facts, which form prominent features of our past history as a Church, may very properly lead us to inquire for that course of action in future which may be best calculated to preserve the peace and unity of the whole body, promote the greatest happiness of the slave population, and advance generally, in the slave-holding community of our country, the humane and hallowing influence of our holy religion. We cannot withhold from you, at this eventful period, the solemn conviction of our minds, that no new ecclesiastical legislation on the subject of slavery at this time will have a tendency to accomplish these most desirable objects. And we are fully persuaded, that, as a body of Christian ministers, we shall accomplish the greatest good by directing our individual and united efforts, in the spirit of the first teachers of Christianity, to bring both master and servant under the sanctifying influence of the principles of that gospel which teaches the duties of every relation, and enforces the faithful discharge of them by the strongest conceivable motives. Do we aim at the amelioration of the condition of the slave? How can we so effectually accomplish this, in our calling as ministers of the gospel of Christ, as by employing our whole influence to bring both him and his master to a saving knowledge of the grace of God, and to a practical observance of those relative duties so clearly prescribed in the writings of the inspired apostles? Permit us to add, that, although we enter not into the political contentions of the day, neither interfere with civil legislation, nor with the administration of the laws, we cannot but feel a deep interest in whatever affects the peace, prosperity, and happiness of our beloved country. The union of these States, the perpetuity of the bonds of our national confederation, the reciprocal confidence of the different members of the great civil compact; in a word, the well-being of the community of which we are members, should never cease to he near our hearts, and for which we should offer up our sincere and most ardent prayers to the almighty Ruler of the universe. But can we, as ministers of the gospel, and servants of a Master ‘whose kingdom is not of this world,’ promote these important objects in any way so truly and permanently as by pursuing the course just pointed out? Can we, at this eventful crisis, render a better service to our country than by laying aside all interference with relations authorized and established by the civil laws, and applying ourselves wholly and faithfully to what specially appertains to our ‘high and holy calling;’ to teach and enforce the moral obligations of the gospel, in application to all the duties growing out of the different relations in society? By a diligent devotion to this evangelical employment, with an humble and steadfast reliance upon the aid of divine influence, the number of ‘believing masters’ and servants may be constantly increased, the kindest sentiments and affections cultivated, domestic burdens lightened, mutual confidence cherished, and the peace and happiness of society be promoted. While on the other hand, if past history affords us any correct rules of judgment, there is much cause to fear that the influence of our sacred office, if employed in interfering with the relation itself, and consequently with the civil institutions of the country, will rather tend to prevent than to accomplish these desirable ends.

“But while we sincerely and most affectionately, and, we humbly trust, in the spirit of the gospel of Christ, recommend to you, and to all the ministers and members you represent in the body, to pursue such a course in regard to this deeply exciting subject, we think it proper to invite your attention in particular to one point, intimately connected with it, and, as we conceive, of primary importance. It is in regard to the true import and application of the general rule on slavery. The different constructions to which it has been subjected, and the variety of opinions entertained upon it, together with the conflicting acts of some of the annual conferences of the north and south, seem to require that a body, having legitimate jurisdiction, should express a clear and definite opinion, as a uniform guide to those to whom the administration of the discipline is committed.

Another subject of vital importance, as we apprehend, to the unity and peace of the Church, and not unconnected with the foregoing, is the constitutional powers of the general superintendents, in such relations to the annual conferences, and in their general executive administration of the government; and the rights of annual and quarterly conferences, in their official capacities. In the prosecution of our superintending agency, we have been compelled to differ in opinion from many of our brethren composing these official bodies; and this difference of opinion, connected with a conviction of our high responsibility, has, in a few cases, resulted in action which has been judged, by those specially concerned, to be high-handed, unconstitutional, tyrannical, and oppressive. In all such cases, we have given the most unequivocal assurances that we should, with unfeigned satisfaction and the kindest feelings, submit the whole matter in controversy, with all our official acts in the premises, to the enlightened deliberation and final judgment of this constitutional tribunal. And we cannot but indulge the hope that those who have differed from us will cordially abide the decision of such a judicatory, should it not accord with their views. We have no disposition to enter into an extensive examination of the merits of the case, which, we regret to say, has been a matter of prolonged discussion in self-created conventions, and in some of the religious periodicals of the day. But our object is to lay before you the simple points involved, and leave the issue to be settled as your united wisdom shall determine, requesting liberty, at the proper time, if occasion should require, to correct erroneous statements, and remove improper impressions, having reference to both course of action. In presenting this subject to your consideration, it is due to a very large majority of all the annual conferences, and to the members composing them, individually, to say that the utmost harmony, and confidence, and affection exist between them and the general superintendents. The geographical bounds of the controversy are very limited.

The whole subject may be presented to you in the following simple questions: When any business comes up for action in our annual or quarterly conferences, involving a difficulty on a question of law, so as to produce the inquiry, What is the law in the case? does the constitutional power to decide the question belong to the president, or the conference? Have the annual conferences a constitutional right to do any other business than what is specifically prescribed, or, by fair construction, provided for in the form of Discipline? Has the president of an annual conference, by virtue of his office, a right to decline putting a motion or resolution to vote, on business other than that thus prescribed or provided for?

“These questions are proposed with exclusive reference to the principle of constitutional right. The principles of courtesy and expediency are very different things.

“As far as we have been able to ascertain the views of those who entertain opinions opposite to our own on these points, they may be summed up as follows: —

“They maintain that all questions of law arising out of the business of our annual or quarterly conferences are to be, of right, settled by the decision of those bodies, either primarily by resolution, or finally by an appeal from the decision of the president: ‘that it is the prerogative of an annual conference to decide what business they will do, and when they will do it:’ that they have a constitutional right ‘to discuss, in their official capacity, all moral subjects:’ to investigate the official acts of other annual conferences — of the General Conference, and of the general superintendents, so far as to pass resolutions of disapprobation or approval on those acts. They maintain that the president of an annual conference is to be regarded in the same relation to the conference that a chairman or speaker sustains to a civil legislative assembly: that it is his duty to preserve order in the conference, to determine questions of order, subject to appeal, and put to vote all motions and resolutions, when called for according to the rules of the body: that these are the settled landmarks of his official prerogatives, as president of the conference, beyond which he has no right to go: that although it belongs to his office, as general superintendent, to appoint the time for holding the several annual conferences, he has no discretionary authority to adjourn them, whatever length of time they may have continued their session, or whatever business they may think proper to transact. From these doctrines we have felt it our solemn duty to dissent. And we will not withhold from you our deliberate and abiding conviction, that if they should be sustained by the General Conference, the uniform and efficient administration of the government would be rendered impracticable.