I may be mistaken. There may be a minority instead of a majority; but let that minority be ever so small, it has rights, and they can not be thrown overboard, and out of the pales of the Church, unless they leave their homes; for the terms of secession forbid the formation of societies across the line. To leave our homes will not suit us, and our alternative will be to claim Church property, and seek supplies from the God of providence. "We want peace, and would much prefer giving up Bishop Andrew, Bishop Soule, or any other bishop, to yielding our rights in the Methodist Episcopal Church. And if Bishop Andrew is capable of filling other appointments, and should he be made subject to them, he will, no doubt, in the day of judgment, feel full as well at rendering up a faithful account of low stations as he would at having rent the Church contending for high ones. Beside that, such appointments will better enable him to oversee his negroes than the office of bishop, These negroes have become his household,' and he must not neglect' them; and the office of bishop requires such long trips that he can not take them and do his duty both at home and abroad. His incumbrances forbid it. I am aware it is contended that circuit preachers, presiding elders, etc., do this thing.' I know they do too much of it. The Church knows it, God knows it, and the women who own slaves know it, after it is too late. I have known many preachers become owners of slaves, but have never known one made more holy or useful by it, and have often seen the opposite effect produced. If I understand this matter, Bishop Andrew, by his marriage, became the master, and, therefore, responsible for the treatment of those negroes as long as they remain slaves. It is true he made a deed of trust,' but that will not exonerate him from obligations arising from ownership. It is a miserable subterfuge, which places the negroes beyond the reach of the Bishop's control, but does not place the Bishop beyond responsibility for their treatment, education, etc. In comparison with it, the law of Georgia forbidding emancipation is a merciful enactment. Under his deed of trust,' no doubt, the negroes are disposed of in such a way as to place them under the management of an overseer, and he may treat them as bad as he pleases, even in sight of the Bishop, who can not prevent it. Yet he could have done it, therefore he is responsible, having placed them there by that deed of trust,' which is recorded as his act and deed for the purpose therein mentioned. And can any one say that the Bishop's moral relation is an enviable one? Now, with the Bishop's hands thus washed, and yet stained, shall they be used to consecrate a holy ministry, and thereby be the channel through which the overflowing stream of salvation is handed down to generations yet unborn? May God forbid it! Shall we exonerate Bishop Andrew upon the score of ignorance? No, he is a southern man, and a man of intelligence. The old doctrine, taught by our Savior, is true, That the hireling, whose own the sheep are not, careth not for the sheep, because he is an hireling; and with men, who hire to oversee and drive negroes, there is generally less principle than with men who hire to take care of sheep. It is clearly obvious that slavery is growing on us as a people, the membership as well as the ministry; and if the Church, north, can check its growth, they will have done a good deed. They, however, in the Bishop Andrew matter, do not propose to check its growth on us, but only propose to check its growth on them; and, on this account, the hue and cry is raised, and the Church is to be rent, and the wheels of Zion's car clogged. "The bishops delivered an address to the General conference, objecting to the marriage of young preachers, and Bishop Andrew signed it. They think the taking of a wife is evidence that a young man has either backslidden or mistaken his call.' (Did Bishop Andrew pen this sentence?) And it does seem to me that a wife and fifteen negroes will fill the head and hands of an old man as full as a wife will the head and heart of a young one; yet the young one commits crime, according to Bishop Andrew, has backslidden or mistaken his call,' while there is nothing wrong or improper with him, even if he make a sale of three-fourths of a score of men, women, and children, to continue them in slavery. But this is a deed of trust!' which is no better, nor is it as good, as a clear deed of sale; for a clear sale places them under an owner, and a trust sale under the control of a 'hireling,' for the benefit of his family, and consequently himself, that he may suck their blood through an overseer's lash; and this man must and shall be bishop against the will and consent of a large majority, and no man must even intimate his disqualification upon pain of being branded with abolitionism, in all its hideous forms, by the holy ministry of the Methodist Episcopal Church." 5. In the Baltimore conference, though much of it lay in the bounds of Virginia and Maryland, there was strong opposition to division of any kind. The right to divide the Church was denied almost generally.* Resolutions against it were passed in different places. Westmoreland circuit, as might be expected, were in its favor. This noble conference kept its position as formerly, maintaining its strong antislavery character, and yielding to none of the innovations of the times. The truth is, Baltimore well earned the name of the "break-water" conference, as she stood on the one side in firm opposition to every thing pro-slavery, and on the other was not influenced by ultra abolition principles and measures. 6. The general sentiments of the Philadelphia conference may be represented as follows: The quarterly conference of the Union Church declared that they "regarded with feelings of deep regret, every attempt to interrupt the harmony or dissolve the union of the Methodist Episcopal Church;" and they would exert all their influence "to perpetuate her union and to promote her prosperity." The quarterly meeting of Chester circuit declared, "that there does not legally or ecclesiastically exist any right or authority in the General conference, or in any other judicatory in our communion, to divide the Church." 7. In Arkansas there was much opposition to the separation. An address was prepared by the members of Fayetteville circuit, and adopted by others, to the Louisville convention, against the separation, and published before the convention *C., February 19th. Scraps, II, p. 805. † C., February 12th and 19th. Scraps, II, pp. 209, 253. conference who voted for the resolution in Bishop Andrew's case, are abolitionists."* met. The address commences by saying that well-enough should be let alone; that the members do not wish a change; that there exists no 10. Dr. Bond, up to the convention, was pecusufficient cause for a change; that a division liarly obnoxious to the south. Indeed, the southof the Church might promote a division of the ern papers indulged in vehement railing against Union. Most persons deplore a division; the all who opposed division. For the most part the missions will suffer; subdivisions must follow; charges were rung on the same topics relative to a division would increase the weight and tighten the General conference and its action in the case the bonds of slavery. It would limit the Gospel of Bishop Andrew. Statements and arguments commission; it would lead to the organization of which have been answered again and again, a new Church. The plan is oppressive, because have been dished up anew, as if presented for it forces out of the Church those who do not de- the first time. They overlooked the principal sire to go. The line will be an occasion of strife; point in question; namely, that the sole ригрове the part south of the line will be a secession; of the General conference was to prevent bishops the north and the south will become rivals. from becoming slaveholders, for there was no apThe circumstances of the division are revolu-prehension of the election of one. At any rate, tionary.* Dr. Bond was vilified by most of the southern correspondents, and by all of the editors, without stint, courtesy, or truth. Indeed, the Alabama conference, which, at its previous session, lauded him, passed several resolutions, preceded by an abusive preamble, retracting their former act, and denouncing him in the most unjust terms. 8. In western Virginia, whether in the bounds of the Pittsburg conference, or out of it, the separation met with a strong resistance. Morgantown station, Virginia, passed resolutions against division. Wytheville circuit declared, among other resolutions, "that the action of the General conference is not a sufficient cause for rending asunder our beloved Church; and that the action of the southern convention should be to reconcile the conflicting elements of the Church, and dissipate all asperity of feeling among us."+ 11. The editor of the Western Advocate came in for the next greater share of abuse from the southern press, whether correspondents or editors, especially the latter. The Southern Advocate abused him unsparingly. The Richmond Advocate was by no means behind in this work. The Nashville Advocate was past all forbearance, because he published Mr. Cartwright's letter on Bishop Soule. This was not all; in an anonymous article he represented him both as insane and changeable, and doggedly endeavored to make this impression on the public mind throughout the south.** And this course was afterward persisted in in a variety of ways, so as to make the public believe that the editor was unworthy of credit, because he was mentally deranged. It is true, the authors of the slander did not believe it, but the uninitiated took it for 9. To accomplish the work of secession, we can easily see that the southern leaders changed their grounds of grievances to a convenient extent. The southern delegates asked the plan as a peace measure, declaring their hope to use it advantageously to prevent division. If division were inevitable, they said the plan would lessen the evil. But the next day after the conference adjourned, they took preliminary measures for separation, and accomplished it as far as they could; and then returned home to persuade the people it was necessary; and that the General conference approved of it. They subsequently declared the whole south were of one mind; al-granted. though vast multitudes were opposed to division. The southern delegates declared slavery to be an evil, and the Discipline on it must not be touched; but they are now apologists for it, and the section on slavery must be erased. During the session of General conference, and after it, they declared that Bishop Andrew was deposed; but now he is only advised, and this advice should not be taken.|| Various statements were made in the south to promote division. As a specimen, we give the following, which is from a Methodist of Gaston, Sumpter county, Alabama, dated January 18, 1845: "That the late General conference dealt unjustly with Bishop Andrew; that their act was unlawful. "That it is intended next to cut off all slaveholders from membership. "That the General conference of 1840 agreed that slaveholding should not disqualify for any office in the Church. "That all slaveholders are sinners; that they fastened on us the testimony of colored persons in Church trials. " That Bishop Hedding is, and has been for the last ten years, an abolitionist. The editor of the Western Advocate maintained, at General conference, that new Churches might be organized, and hoped that, should this be the case now, that evil would not follow. Accordingly, he did not, for several months, enter into the controversy. But when the south changed their course and their principles, he felt himself compelled to enter the lists. In April, 1845, after reaffirming his former views, he says: "It is useless to quote, or refer to our uninfluential name or office, to sustain these new measures. We therefore maintain that such a division, or secession as is likely to take place, has no countenance from any thing we have said, written, or done, either at General conference or since, in public or private. Some have represented us as having changed our ground. This is an entire mistake. The very nature and circumstances of the original case have changed, and we therefore retire from it in consequence of the mutations thrown around it. Those who have changed grounds themselves can frighten us by any charges they can furnish * C., March 5th. Scraps, II, p. 796. not Scraps, II, p. 809. N., January 31st "That all the delegates in the late General and March 21st. Scraps, II, pp. 151, 380. S., February 14th, March 14th. Scraps, II, pp. 224, 364. S., February 7th. R., April 11th. Scraps, II, p. 363. March 14th. Scraps, II, pp. 198, 363. Scraps, II, pp. 535, 647. [ N., March 13th. Scraps, II, p. 343. Scraps, II, p. 166. against us, for charges attributed to us, but chargeable to themselves."* The editor of the Pittsburg Advocate comments thus on the subject: "The editor of the Western Christian Advocate receives the special notice of the editors down south, and has the honor of being placed by them in the same category with Dr. Bond. So long as Dr. Elliott stood aloof from the controversy, the southern editors and writers were loud in their commendations of his prudence and distinguished abilities, and also in the expressions of regret that he did not occupy the chair of Dr. Bond. But now that he has seen proper to give expression to his views, and that these views are averse to the south; now, forsooth, that they could not coax the Doctor to hold his peace, while they were speaking out constantly in their own behalf, and against the north, they change their tone toward him. Now they accuse him of change, of inconsistency, and find it difficult to admit that he is in his right mind.' 0, how, in southern estimation, has 'the mighty fallen!' Act in accordance with our sense of prudence and right, and we will pronounce you a great man-we will load you with our praises; but step aside from that, and we will regard you as vacillating, inconsistent, insane! Surely, if this be a specimen of the stuff southern fame is made of, we presume to say that their praise or censure will be, in Dr. Elliott's judgment, equally light commodities."* CHAPTER XXXII. EVENTS PRECEDING THE CONVENTION OF 1845. 1. THE General conference looking toward a probable separation from the Methodist Episcopal Church, they said, in their plan, how they would treat those who declared they must separate from the Methodist Episcopal Church. The General conference neither divided the Church nor provided for its division, nor did they believe they had any power to divide it. Mr. Thomas M. Smith, an intelligent lawyer of Louisville, maintained, in January, this proposition, "that there exists no legitimate power in the General conference, or in the authorities of any portion or department of the Methodist Episcopal Church, to make such division." For what men may do, in civil or ecclesiastical society, resolving themselves into their original elements, and acting on the principles of revolution or secession, is not the question. No authority exists from the Discipline, either to divide or dissolve the Church. Such a thing would be a monstrosity.† Even in the south that doctrine of division did not obtain which afterward was so much relied Rev. Evan Stevenson, on December 27, 1844, asked the following question, which is answered by Mr. M'Ferrin, January 10, 1845: on. "Has the General conference any constitutional authority to divide the Methodist Episcopal Church?" The General conference, however, did not assume the right to divide the Church. It only made provision for separation, in case the southern conferences found it necessary to form a distinct organization." And this explanation of Mr. M'Ferrin proves that his resolution, offered in June, 1844, instructing the committee of nine to provide for a constitutional division, was neither entertained nor acted on.|| In January, Dr. Bangs expresses himself thus on this topic: "1. I do not believe that the General conference, in adopting that report, sanctioned or authorized a division of the Church. 2. I do not believe that any power or right exists any where, either in the General con ference, all the annual conferences, or the entire membership, to divide the Church. 3. Hence it follows, that if the south, or any portion of the Church, divide, or form a separate organization, they must withdraw, and declare themselves independent, assigning their reasons for so doing, and if they are satisfactory to themselves, their consciences will rest easy under the circumstances, whether those from whom they separate will approve or disapprove of their conduct."+ In consequence of the change of ground by the south in reference to division, the editor of the Western Advocate took occasion in March, to maintain, that the committee ap pointed to consider Dr. Capers's resolutions of June 3d, which provided for two General conferences, and for a mutual division of the Church, concluded, after mature deliberation, that they could not entertain the resolutions of Dr. Capers; and, therefore, no report was made upon them, except that the thing contemplated could not be done. Hence the General conference considered and treated this severance, not as a division of the Methodist Episcopal Church, but as a separation or secession of the south from the Methodist Episcopal Church. There are three ways to effect the severance of members from the Church; namely, by division, by separation, secession, or withdrawal, and by schism. Division is the distribution of the whole into two or more parts, by the acts of the whole, with the consent of each part, as well as the whole, so that each part possesses the same or similar powers in regard to itself, as the whole formerly did in regard to the whole. Division of a different sort may be nothing more than a mere separation, withdrawing, or secession, or even an unchristian schism. The name division may be retained while the thing itself may be a mere secession or schism. A separation or secession, is a severance of a part of a religious community, or Church, from the whole, by the act of the separatists themselves, and without the approval or act of the whole from which they *P., April 9th. Scraps, II, p. 505. †C., January 23d. Scraps, II, p. 133. separate. In this case, those who separate, re-copal Church, her bishops, preachers, and memnounce the jurisdiction of the whole, and set up bers, from primary meetings, editors and correa government of their own, to which alone they spondents, shows the conciliatory character of acknowledge responsibility. They usually give the Methodist Episcopal Church and General reasons for their separation. If the reasons are conference was not met by the same temper from Scriptural and valid, they are justified in their the south. Look at the following considerations: secession. If their reasons are insufficient, they First. As the south depended on General conare nothing more than schismatics. ference courtesy and action, they should have fulfilled, on their side, the obligations created by such conference courtesy and action. Will men who hold the General conference and its expressed will in utter contempt, claim, on the same authority, a portion of the Book Concern, or a certain geographical boundary? Shall the acts of the General conference bind one party, and leave the other to do as it pleases? Is its authority good against itself only, and a mere cipher when it claims something of regard for itself? If the General conference was authority for her, it was also authority against her, and she should have remembered it. The third mode by which a part may be severed from the whole is by schism, and schism is an unscriptural or sinful separation of a part from the whole, without just cause or reasons moving thereto. The General conference considered and treated the south, not as a division of the Methodist Episcopal Church, but as a separation, secession, or withdrawal; because, 1. The plan for division comprised in Dr. Capers's resolutions of June 3d did not obtain. 2. The resolution of Messrs. M'Ferrin and Spicer, "to devise, if possible, a constitutional plan for a mutual and friendly division of the Church," was not adopted by the committee of nine. They did consider it, and decided that it was not constitutional, and therefore they did not provide to meet division, but separation or secession. 3. The wording of the committee in their report shows that the thing contemplated was secession, and not a division. Notice the following: "In the event of a separation-should the annual conferences in the slaveholding states find it necessary to unite in a distinct ecclesiastical connection"-"the Church, south"-"the southern Church"-" the Church, south"-"the Church, south, should one be organized "—" the southern organization, should one be formed"-"should the separation take place' "the southern organization "-"the Church so formed in the south." 4. Beside, in direct contradiction to this separation of the south, the former name of the Methodist Episcopal Church is retained in the document, and the Methodist Episcopal Church is represented as existing and organized, and as taking no part in organizing the southern Church. When the point was reached in the General conference that the southern delegates announced their determination to secede, as a matter of necessity, it was agreed by all that the thing in fact must be a secession. But the north charitably believed they would depart in peace; they therefore were not disposed to call them seceders, as they thought no good would result from the name, because it would annoy them. They also desired that the south should have in public estimation the best ground possible for winning souls to Christ. Leading southern brethren expressed the hope that they would not be called a secession, and the northern brethren were disposed not to do it. The committee of nine, acting in this spirit of kindness, substituted the word separation for secession; and though it means secession, it does not sound so gratingly to the ear. The editor of the Western Advocate, on the floor of General conference, made some remarks, applying to this separation, as far as was possible to adapt them, principles proper to a regular ecclesiastical division, fondly hoping to make secession itself virtually a genuine division, or at least a peaceable separation, omitting that harsh word-secession. Now, had the south chosen to leave peaceably, first finding, and not creating a necessity for going, the result would be different. The unprecedented abuse cast on the Methodist Epis * See Journal, p. 68. Secondly. The south now began to claim that she is the Methodist Episcopal Church. But if so, the Methodist Episcopal Church is not the Methodist Episcopal Church, and hence no commissioners will make any appropriations to them.* Dr. Capers, in an article dated March 28, 1845, complains of the version which we gave of his resolutions in our article of the 14th of March, on division. Yet he allows two very important facts to have existed. He says the committee on his resolutions agreed that the thing contemplated "ought not to be done in the manner specified in the resolutions, or by any action on the resolutions;" and he allowed that nothing was done on that basis. This leaves us in possession of the views we entertained, and still entertain.† 2. Indeed, the separation of the south, as far as it had progressed in the spring of 1845, could be set down as nothing else than a secession in progress. Dr. Bangs represented the contemplated new Church as a secession, as we have seen.‡ This is placed in a very clear light by the Rev. G. M. Keesee. He had asserted, on November 7th, 1844, "that it was the purpose of the southern delegations to secede, in case there had been no provision made for a peaceable separation by the conferences." This was questioned by Mr. Lee. In a letter dated January 27th, Mr. Keesece maintains his grounds by the following proofs, drawn from the debates in General conference. He then quotes the declarations of Dr. Winans, Mr. Drake, G. F. Pierce, Dr. Smith, Mr. Dunwoody, and the declaration. We give what Mr. Dunwoody says: "If this course were persevered in, they would force the south to secede, because they did not believe that this conference had any right to interfere in the question of slavery." Dr. Akers, on February 12th, showed clearly that the necessity urged by the south did not exist.§ But Dr. Smith, as we have already seen, rade up a new theory to evade secession. It was this: that the south did not secede from the Methodist Episcopal Church, but from the jurisdiction of the General conference. W., March 14th. Scraps, II, p. 351. S., March 28th. Scraps, II, p. 435. C., January 23d. Scraps, II, p. 133. R., February 6th. Scraps, II, pp. 185, 186. the quotations from the speeches, Debates, pp. 89, 156, 106, 111, 143, 165, 200. C., February 12th. Scraps, II, pp. 212, 213. See, for 3. The powers and prerogatives of the Episcopacy were considered and canvassed among other points of controversy. In the south they were extended and magnified, while in the north they were viewed as formerly, or perhaps in some cases they were somewhat curtailed. Mr. Griffith lays down the two following propositions, respecting the powers of the General conference and of the Episcopacy: "First. That the General conference has full power to make rules and regulations for the Church, under the six restrictions found in the constitution; so that whatever is not excepted, or expressly taken away, by the limitations and restrictions, is delegated and given: and, "Secondly. That no more power is vested in any office or department of official authority; or in any officer, individual, individuals, or agency whatever, acting under or by authority of the Church than is given or vested by express authority of the General conference, or which may not be derived by fair and direct implication from the powers given." addressed letters to Mr. Clay and Mr. Polk inquiring what effect this would have. Mr. Polk made no reply. Mr. Clay, in a letter dated April 7, 1845, expressed his opinion that the effect of secession in the Church might greatly promote disunion between north and south, in connection with other causes.* The disunion among the Baptists increased the fears of many on this topic. 5. It was constantly declared by the south "that the Church has no right to interfere with the civil institution of slavery by any ecclesiastical legislation whatever." But the Church never attempted to legislate on it as a civil institution, but as a moral subject, the same as upon groggeries, gambling, horse-racing, or the like. These subjects are partly moral and partly civil, and the Church regulates only the moral. It is, therefore, vain to say that if the southern delegates would recognize the right of the General conference to interfere in the case of Bishop Andrew, it would be the same as to acknowledge the right of the conference to legislate authoritatively on the subject of slavery.† Mr. Griffith defines Episcopacy further, and maintains that Methodist Episcopacy is that Episcopacy which the General conference shall 6. In March it was ascertained that the alternot do away. It is a superior office, which the ation of the 6th Restriction was lost, according conference of 1784 adopted as a distinct depart to the recommendation of the General conferment of official authority and power, and incor-ence, there being about one hundred and fifty porated it as a primary element of the organic law for the government of the Church; and the General conference is bound to fill this office from time to time with suitable men, so as to maintain it. Thus the office is distinguished from the incumbents which fill it. The Rev. James Quinn, indeed, thought that the power of defining law awarded to the bishops was an improper stretch of prerogative. He says, under date of March 21st, "I was afraid, when the General conference of 1840 accorded to the Episcopacy law-expounding prerogatives, that it might grow, and finally come forth with veto, veto. To this, perhaps, the high-toned aristocracy of the south and southwest might submit, but the cool, determined Franklintonian republicanism of the north and west would never submit." The Rev. William Burke wrote several elaborate articles for the Nashville Advocate, in the beginning of the year, on Episcopacy and the General conference. Mr. Burke assumed higher powers for the Episcopacy than those formerly ascribed to it, while he proportionately depressed the powers of the General conference. Dr. Bascom did the same in his answer of the Reply to the Protest. 4. The effect of the southern secession was dreaded by many as having a disastrous effect on the union of the states. Mr. William Booth *C., March 5th. Scraps, II, pp. 801-804. +See Restriction 5. W., March 21st. Scraps, II, p. 375. [N., April 4th. Scraps, II, pp. 482-501. votes wanting to carry it. This was acknowledged by the southern papers. The Richmond Advocate, after enumerating the votes, says: "These facts satisfy us that the question is lost. The northern conferences have refused to divide the property of the Church with their southern brethren; but will this stay or prevent the division of the Church? Not a whit. There is something more than money involved in this question; and dollars and cents can never be suffered to mingle in a question of principle. The southern conferences will, undoubtedly, separate, money or no money. They go for principle, not interest." The Southern Advocate approvingly quotes the above. At this time the doctrine did not prevail in the south that they could get this property in any way but by a constitutional vote of the annual conferences. 7. The property question now assumed a serious form. The Kentucky conference declared, as we have seen, that they could not consent to any division which would place them in the position of a secession, or would peril their title to Church property. Dr. Tomlinson, in August, 1844, inquired of the commissioners whether the carrying out of the plan would disconnect the south from the Methodist Episcopal Church. The reply of the commissioners, Messrs. Bangs, Peck, and Finley, was, that unless the south were to be a secession from the Methodist Episcopal Church, they could not, according to the plan, receive any thing from the Book Concern. Heretofore, in all legal decisions, the loss of membership in a Church deprived the person of all legal claim to the property conveyed for such Church. This position was taken by Judge Robinson, of Kentucky, in 1842, and his decision was published by Dr. Tomlinson, shortly after, in the Western Christian Advocate. It was, in effect, as follows: "That a secession of membership *C., May 14th. Scraps, II, pp. 637, 706, 812. Scraps, II, p. 403; and S., April 3d. |