A constitutional history of American Episcopal Methodism

Front matter

.0 ~*

Constitutional History

OF

Preface

This history has been written from the sources, with due regard to recognized authorities. By sources are meant the journals and correspondence of the Wesleys, Coke, Asbury, Whatcoat, Mc- Kendree, and others; the memoirs of Ware, Watters, Gatch, and Garrettson; the official records of the Conferences in England and America; the literature of the governmental questions that have agitated the Church; and, in general, whatever contemporary data are now extant and accessible. By authorities are meant the histories of Smith, Bangs, Stevens, McTyeire, Atkinson, Neely, and some others; the biographies by Tyerman, Whitehead, Moore, Southey, Watson, Jackson, Drew, Bangs, Phoebus, Lee, Paine, Elliott, Clark, Emory, Hibbard, and others; and whatever later publications illustrate the inquiries here prosecuted. Jesse Lee's Historv of the Methodists is, for the most part, to be accepted as a source. It is not necessary, however, to attempt here a complete enumeration of the materials whence the narrative and its conclusions have been drawn: ample acknowledgment is made in the footnotes, and it is believed that no essential aid has been neglected.

Of a valuable collection of papers, of which considerable use has been made, some account should be given. Bishop Asbury's papers were left to Bishop McKendree; Bishop McKendree's to Bishop Soule, who, it was expected, would be his biographer. When Bishop Paine undertook this task, Bishop Soule placed both Mr. Asbury's (so far as not previously disposed of) and Mr. Mc- Kendree's papers in his hands. Later, Bishop Soule's own papers, and the collection in Bishop Paine's possession, of which he made large but by no means exhaustive use in his Life of McKendree, came into the hands of Bishop McTyeire. Since his death, they

Preface.

have been, by his direction, in my custody. Some of these papers ought not to be published, and will be submitted to judicious persons who have the best right to a judgment and voice in their final disposition; many are reserved for future uses; a considerable number— such as the notes of the first Bishops' meeting ever held in the Methodist Episcopal Church, at Philadelphia, in 1826, and the official correspondence of the Bishops at that time — are here published for the first time.

In this book, I do not pretend to have responded to a " \ongfelt want." Nor has anybody urged me to write. The truth is that all of us, preachers as well as people, grow more or less indifferent to such inquiries, until some crisis in the affairs of the Church, perhaps unexpected and perilous, reveals to us our careless, if not sinful, neglect. But there is real need for a work like this. Hence, under a sense of duty, and in default of a more competent hand (or, indeed, of any hand turned to this task) I have undertaken to fill a hitherto unoccupied place in the literature of American Methodism, whose importance cannot be exaggerated. I wish I could have done the work better. I have not reached my ideal. The time for investigation and composition has been snatched from the many and exacting duties of a busy pastorate in a large city; but, though I have coveted abundant leisure, to perfect the literary form, and to make it more worthy of the theme, I think, after repeated review, that for « substance of doctrine," the book is about as good as I could make it. Otherwise, in this age of many books, I should have no right to publish it.

Whenever it was possible, my method of composition has been to combine the sources, especially on the many disputed points, into a consistent narrative, whose simplicity and directness should be the warrant of its truth. Sometimes I have been able to show, by brief extracts from many independent sources, that but one. view could possibly represent the truth. For a time my mind inclined to the arrangement adopted by Gieseler, in his Church History, by which the evidence is thrown into footnotes; but this plan was

Preface.

finally rejected as equally cumbersome and unnecessary. I have not been satisfied to write a chapter or a paragraph, however, until the results of a critical comparison of all the accessible sources and authorities had crystallized in a clear conception, definite, concrete, and satisfactory, at least to my own mind. Usually when in doubt, I have said so. But I have written under the growing conviction that in a work of this kind, the reader has a right to expect conclusions; and I have striven, without dogmatism or commentary unwarranted by the facts, to leave as few open questions behind me as possible. This general method has been adopted, because ( i ) it is the only conclusive one on points in dispute; (2) it is most satisfactory on all points to the critical reader, who is generally put in possession of sufficient evidence to test the validity of the conclusions arrived at; and (3) it is most entertaining to the general reader, who is thus afforded a pleasing variety. Occasionally, short excursions into the field of our general history have been indulged in; for, as Hallam observes, at some periods constitutional and general history nearly coincide. Presuming, however, upon the reader's familiarity with this outlying territory, I have, in general, confined the narrative to the strictly constitutional and governmental materials, which are rich and abundant.

Perhaps it ought to be added, that I have sought to pursue these inquiries in a purely historical spirit. My aim has been first to get at the truth — sometimes a task of considerable difficulty — and then to tell it. No controversial aim or interest has consciously warped a judgment or shaded a statement. I have no disposition to conceal the fact that I am a member and minister of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South; but, as the whole period covered by this volume relates to the original, undivided household of our American Methodist faith, and is the common birthright of the two Episcopal Methodisms, I trust that both the catholic spirit and the truthful letter of this history will commend themselves to my brethren of the Methodist Episcopal Church. It would be too much to hope that all the conclusions herein expressed will be io Preface.

universally accepted; but it is not too much to expect that all lovers and seekers of truth will find in this work little to hinder and something to aid them in their search.

Our constitutional epochs of 1773, when the first American Conference met; of 1784, when Mr. Wesley and the Christmas- Conference organized the Methodist Episcopal Church; of 1787, when the American Church asserted its autonomy; of 1792, when the first Quadrennial General Conference assembled; of i8o8 r when the Delegated General Conference and its Constitution came into existence; and of 1820-1828, when the constitutional government of the Methodist Episcopal Church underwent its first severe strain, have, of course, been treated with special fullness. In this last-mentioned period, the evidence, not hitherto accessible in its entirety, has constrained the conclusion that the sectional severance of American Methodism, on constitutional issues which still divide it, was really effected. The fifth volume of Dr. Stevens' able history of the Methodist Episcopal Church, which will cover the period beginning with 1820, is announced as almost ready. I am sorry not to be able to consult it before going to press. Important later matters in 1844 and down to 1892 — the centenary of the General Conference — have been treated, where chronological order has been sacrificed to topical completeness.

To Bishops Galloway and Hendrix, I must here express my appreciation of their kind encouragement. J. J. T.

Kansas City, Mo., November 25, 1893.

THE DEL EG A TED GENERAL CONFERENCES OF THE UNDIVIDED METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH.

Chap. XIX. The First and Second Delegated General Conferences, 1812 and 1816 327

Chap. XX. The Third Delegated General Conference, and Mr. Soule's First Election to the Episcopacy, 1820 338

Chap. XXI. The Quadrennium, 1820-1824: the Contrasted Governments of the Two Episcopal Methodisms 364

Chap. XXII. The Fourth and Fifth Delegated General Conferences, and the Intervening Quadrennium, 1824-1828 381

Chap. XXIII. The Sixth and Seventh Delegated General Conferences, 1832 and 1836: Conclusion 410

BOOK L

I. Origin of the Conference.

II. Shall Wesley's Powers Descend to the Conference or to a Designated Successor?

III. Dr. Coke and the Deed of Declaration.

*

CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY

OF

American Episcopal Methodism.

Chapter I. Origin Of The Conference

SINCE 1744 the two constant factors of Methodist polity, (1) a superintending and appointing power, and (2) a consulting body called the Conference, have been continuously operative.

These two factors are constitutional or elemental in the government of Methodism. The system itself changes as either of these elements changes or is variously combined with the other: the disappearance of either is the destruction of the system. Something better might take its place, but it would be also something different. The peculiar economy of Methodism would cease to exist.

The origin, development, history, and relations of these two factors, the former chiefly executive and the latter chiefly legislative, afford the principal, if not exclusive, materials for a constitutional history of Methodism, a task not hitherto accepted as the express province of any single work. It need hardly be added that our inquiry concerns itself altogether with polity and government and not at all with dogma and doctrine.

With the development and definition of the powers and prerogatives of the Conference, with its President, Secretary, other officers, and committees, in English Methodism, i6 after 1784, 44 the grand climacteric year of Methodism," * which gave a determinate and permanent status to both its English and American forms; or, at least, after 1791, the year of the great Founder's death, we have nothing to do in this volume.

From 1739, the year of the rise of the United Society, to 1 791, it may be said in general, the supreme superintending and appointing power, and the final legislative as well, in both Methodisms, English and American, resided in Mr. Wesley alone. Even when he appointed Coke and Asbury to their high office, Wesley had no thought of abandoning his own jurisdiction over the American province of his patriarchate. He was not only a scriptural episcopus (as he declared of himself ),t for purposes of ordination, but in point of power and its use a Bishop in fact, J freely exercising an absolute authority such as has scarcely ever, before or since, fallen to the lot of any one man.

Mr. Wesley's uniform defense and justification of his possession and exercise of these extraordinary powers was that he was himself the creator, the sole author and finisher, of the system which gave rise to them ; and that all subordinate agents had voluntarily entered into a compact with him on stipulated and well-known conditions which they were free at any time to dissolve and annul. This absolutist, for such he was in fact and principle, planted himself squarely on the simple declaration that he was free to do what he would with his own. Whatever might be thought in our country and time of the expediency of such a personal government, his-

*Dr. Whitehead, Life of Wesley, Amer. Ed., Boston, 1844, II. 248. j" Letter to Charles Wesley, Aug. 19, 1785: Tyerman, Life and Times, III. 444.

J The first question in the American Minutes for 1789 is, "Who are the persons that exercise the episcopal office in the Methodist Church in Europe and America?" The answer is, "John Wesley, Thomas Coke, and Francis Asbury." Tyerman adds (III. 437), "by regular order and succession," but these words do not occur in the editions of 181 3 and 1840 which lie before me. His authorities will appear later. Thus John Wesley was virtually dubbed " Bishop " two years before his death, despite his preference for "knave, fool, rascal, or scoundrel," vigorously expressed in September, 1788.

Origin of the Conference.

tory has no other office than to record the fact. And wisdom is justified of her children. How these supreme powers of Mr. Wesley were modified in America after 1784 it will be a part of our task in the following pages to show.

From 1739, the true epoch of Methodism,* as we have assumed, to 1744, the year of the assembling of the first Conference, Mr. Wesley embodied in himself, without limitations of any kind or degree, springing either from a fundamental compact which bound or engaged him, or from the independent activities of personal agents, all controlling authority and power, of whatever nature, in Methodism. The calling of the Conference, though hardly a sharing of his powers, was his first movement toward a division of his burdens.

John Wesley arrived in England from America February 1, 1738, the day after George Whitefield had sailed for the continent Wesley had just left. His labors at Oxford and .elsewhere before he went abroad as a missionary with General Oglethorpe, and his varied experiences as a parish priest in Georgia, while of intense personal interest and affording rich materials for a study of the man, have too remote a bearing upon his subsequent organization of Methodism in England and America to detain us here; his American adventures, however, may briefly engage our attention when we come to notice the beginnings of Methodism in America.

* In his Church Histoi-y, Wesley assigns other dates, as the founding o£ the Holy Club at Oxford in 1729, ten years before, or the meeting begun at Fetter-lane, May 1, 1738, by the advice of Peter Bohler; but his well-known introduction to the General Rules begins, " In the latter end of the year 1739 eight or ten persons came to me in London, etc. . . . this was the rise of the United Society." The corner stone of the first Methodist chapel was laid in Bristol, May 12, 1739, and the Foundry was opened for public worship in London, Nov. 11, 1739. Wesley did not formally separate from the Moravians, however, until July 20, 1740, and Dr. Smith, in his History of Wesleyan Methodism, argues for this date. Tyerman seems to fix it three days later, at the first meeting of the seceders from the Moravians. Compare Stevens, History of Methodism, I. 124, 131, 132 and Tyerman, Life and Times of John Wesley, I. 282, 309, 310.

iS

At a Moravian meeting in Aldersgate street, London, May 24, 1738, John Wesley experienced the grace of conversion. The servant became a son, and henceforth served in his Father's house with unremitting diligence.

His genius for organization and government finds early illustration in an agreement with Messrs. Gambold and Robson touching Moravian affairs. There is much truth in that view of history which, renouncing drum and trumpet, regards it as an accurate portrayal of the life of the people ; but it verges on untruth when it disposes of epoch-makers and reformers as no more than the product of their times. History must indeed take account of the people, but its crises and changes, its free, fresh, full fountains are found in the biographies of its heroes. There can be no more interesting discovery than that of an influential system of thought or public policy as it lies in germ in the mind of a single person before it is put forth to mold the opinions or determine the actions of mankind. This little compact which Mr. Wesley drew up Nov. 12, 1739, embraces a sketch of what afterwards became (1) annual conferences, (2) quarterly meetings, (3) monthly advices of the progress of the work, and (4) systematic provision for its extension. Mr. Wesley says: 44 After much prayer and consultation we agreed: 1. To meet yearly in London, if God permit, on the eve of Ascension day. 2. To fix then the business to be done the ensuing year — where, when, and by whom. 3. To meet quarterly there, as many as can; namely, on the second Tuesday in July, October, and January. 4. To send a monthly account to one another of what God hath done in each of our stations. 5. To inquire whether Mr. Hall, Sympson, Rogers, Ingham, Hutchins, Kinchin, Stonehouse, Cennick, Oxlee, and Brown will join us herein. 6. To consider whether there be any others of our spiritual friends who are able and willing so to do." *

" But this plan," observes Dr. Whitehead, " was never

*Tyerman, Life and Times of John Wesley, I. 281; Whitehead's Life of Wesley, II. 79, Amer. Ed., Boston, 1844.

Origin of the Conference.

*9 put into execution." * The evening before this arrangement at Wycombe with Gambold and Robson, Mr. Wesley had preached to seven or eight thousand people in the Foundry at London; and on July 20, 1740, occurred his formal separation from the Moravians.

Though the London Society, which has maintained an unbroken existence to this day, was organized in 1739, the first Yearly Conference did not convene until June 25, 1744. From that time until his death in 1791, Mr. Wesley held a Conference every year — forty-seven in all.

This annual English Conference Mr. Wesley called into existence. He made it. It exercised such powers as he accorded to it. It was his organ created to answer his ends. Methodist government from this beginning has continued to be the combination of the two factors, a personal executive and a Conference, first of the preachers, " in connection with Mr. John Wesley," and then, in recent times, of ministers and members. The system has found its mature expression and full embodiment in America — in the Episcopacy and the General Conference.

This first Conference, which met in the Foundry, London, consisted of six clergymen of the Church of England— the Revs. John Hodges, John Meriton, Henry Piers, and Samuel Taylor,t besides John and Charles Wesley — and four lay preachers, namely, Thomas Maxfield, Thomas Richards, John Bennet, and John Downes. Of these four, three afterwards abandoned Wesley: Downes only lived and died a Methodist.

June 24, the day before the opening of the Conference, a love-feast was held, at which the six English clergy were present, and the Lord's Supper was administered to the whole of the London Society, numbering more than two thousand members. The Conference was opened with prayer and a sermon by Charles Wesley, who baptized an adult, who there and then found peace with God. J

* Life II. 79. t For notices of these clergymen, see Tyerman, I. 442. JTyerman, Life and Times of John Wesley, I. 443.

The proceedings of the Conference were conducted in the form of question and answer, which is still the canonical Methodist usage, and Mr. Wesley opened the matters to come before the body as follows :

66 It is desired that all things be considered as in the immediate presence of God; that we meet with a single eye, and as little children, who have everything to learn; that every point which is proposed may be examined to the foundation; that every person may speak freely whatever is in his heart; and that every question which may arise should be thoroughly debated and settled.

44 ^. Need we be fearful of doing this? What are we afraid of? Of overturning our first principles? A. If they are false, the sooner they are overturned the better. If they are true, they will bear the strictest examination. Let us all pray for a willingness to receive light, to know of every doctrine whether it be of God.

4 4 How may the time of the Conference be made more eminently a time of watching unto prayer? A . 1. While we are conversing, let us have an especial care to set God always before us. 2. In the intermediate hours let us visit none but the sick, and spend all the time that remains in retirement. 3. Let us therein give ourselves to prayer for one another, and for a blessing upon our labor.

44 How far does each of us agree to submit to the judgment of the majority? A. In speculative things, each can only submit so far as his judgment shall be convinced. In every practical point, each will submit so far as he can without wounding his conscience.

44 J$>_. Can a Christian submit any farther than this to any man, or number of men upon earth? A. It is undeniably certain he cannot; either to Bishop, Convocation, or General Council. And this is that grand principle of private judgment on which all the reformers proceeded, 4 Every man must judge for himself ; because every man must give an account of himself to God.' " *

*Mjles, Chron. Hist, of Meth., pp. 23, 24.

Origin of the Conference.

The last two questions and answers assert the principles of Christian liberty which Methodism has always exemplified, but it might be inferred from the question about submitting to the majority that after debate decisions were made by vote of the Conference.* Such was not the case. The Conference debated, but the Chair decided. " Mr. Wesley was the government: and, though he invited the preachers to confer with him, he did not propose to abandon any of his original power. Thev had a voice by his permission, but he reserved the right to direct." f

That the Conference was thus constituted and continued with no more power than Mr. Wesley allowed it is abundantly evident from a defense of his course which Mr. Wesley issued at the Conference in Leeds in 1766, twenty-two years later, and from a letter which he wrote as late as January, 1780. In 1766 among other things he wrote:

" In 1744 I wrote to several clergymen, and to all who then served me as sons in the gospel, desiring them to meet me in London, to give me their advice concerning the best method of carrying on the work of God. They did not desire this meeting; but / did, knowing that 4 in a multitude of counselors there is safety. 5 And when their number increased, so that it was neither needful nor convenient to invite them all, for several years I wrote to those with whom I desired to confer; and these only met at the place appointed, till at length I gave a general permission that all who desired it might come. Observe ! I myself sent for these, of my own free choice; and I sent for them to advise not govern me. Neither did I at any of those times divest myself of any part of that -power above described, which the providence of God had cast upon me without any design or choice of mine.

" What is that power? It is a power of admitting into and excluding from the societies under my care; of choosing

* Smith's "Disciplinary Minutes" of 1749, say, "How far does each of us agree to submit to the unanimous judgment of the rest?" (Hist. Weslejan Meth., I., 227-229.)

■fNeely, Governing Conference in Methodism, pp. 9, 10.

and removing stewards ; of receiving or of not receiving helpers; of appointing them when, where, and how to help me ; and of desiring any of them to meet me when I see good. And as it was merely in obedience to the providence of God and for the good of the people that I at first accepted this power, which I never sought — nay, a hundred times labored to throw off — so it is on the same considerations, not for profit, honor, or pleasure, that I use it at this day.

" But several gentlemen are much offended at my having so much power. My answer to them is this : ' I did not seek any part of this power; it came upon me unawares. But when it was come, not daring to bury that talent, I used it to the best of my judgment; yet I never was fond of it. I always did, and do now, bear it as my burden — the burden which God lays upon me — and therefore I dare not yet lay it down.' But if you can tell me any one or any five men to whom I may transfer this burden, who can and will do just what I do now, I will heartily thank both them and you.

" But some of our helpers say, 6 This is shackling freeborn Englishmen? and demand a free Conference; that is, a meeting of all the preachers, wherein all things shall be determined by most votes. I answer: ' It is possible, after my death, something of this kind may take place; but not while I live. To me the preachers have engaged themselves to submit to serve me as sons in the gospel. But they are not thus engaged to any man, or number of men, besides. To me the people in general will submit. But they will not yet submit to any other.' It is nonsense, then, to call my using this 'power 4 shackling freeborn Englishmen.' None needs to submit to it unless he will; so there is no shackling in the case. Every preacher and every member may leave me when he pleases. But while he chooses to stay, it is on the same terms that he joined me at first." *

In 1780, thirty-six years after the organization of the Conference, Wesley was not slow to defend the constitution he

*Tyerman, Life and Times, II. 578, 579; Wesley's Works, Amer. Ed., V. 220, 221.

had given it and under which it had continued to act. In a letter written in January of that year he says :

" You seem likewise to have quite a wrong idea of a Conference. For above six years after my return to England there was no such thing. I then desired some of our preachers to meet me, in order to advise, not control me. And, you may observe, they had no power at all but what I exercised through them. I chose to exercise the power which God had given me in this manner, both to avoid ostentation and gently to habituate the people to obey them when I should be taken from their head. But as long as I remain with them, the fundamental rule of Methodism remains inviolate. As long as any preacher joins with me, he is to be directed by me in his work. Do not you see, then, that Brother M., whatever his intentions might be, acted as wrong as wrong could be ; and that the representing of this as the common cause of the preachers was the way to common destruction — the way to turn all their heads and to set them in arms? It was a blow at the very root of Methodism. I could not, therefore, do less than I did; it was the very least that could be done, for fear that evil should spread." *

In the Leeds deliverance of 1766, it is noteworthy (1) that Wesley expresses a willingness to share his powers and responsibilities, " if you can tell me any one or any five men to whom I may transfer this burden; " and (2) that he anticipates that a 44 free Conference," exercising his powers, may come into existence after his death. Already his mind was meditating provision for the perpetuity of Methodism after the personal bond which held it together should be dissolved. How this finally led to the enrollment of the Deed of Declaration in Chancery and the creation of the Legal Hundred we shall discover in following chapters.

Having seen how the English Conference was constituted, with limited, advisory powers, during Mr. Wesley's life, it may be of interest, in concluding this chapter, to note briefly

* Wesley's Works, Amer. Ed., VII. 228.

2 4 some of the doings, in matters governmental, of the first Conference in 1744. The three general heads of debate were, 1. What to teach; 2. How to teach; and 3. What to do, or how regulate discipline and practice. The doctrinal conclusions of the Conference do not here concern us.*

The Methodists were at this time divided into four sections: (1) the united societies, (2) the bands, (3) the select societies, and (4) the penitents. The united societies consisted of awakened persons, and it is worthy of note that from the beginning " seekers" have been eligible to membership; the bands, of those who professed conversion; the select societies, of those from the bands who seemed to walk in the light: the penitents were the backsliders. The lay assistants were to expound; to meet the united societies, bands, select societies, and penitents once a week; to visit the classes quarterly, and to decide differences; to receive on trial and to put the disorderly back on trial; to see that stewards, leaders, schoolmasters, and housekeepers faithfully discharged their duties, and to meet the stewards and leaders weekly to audit their accounts.

With reference to the Church of England, it was resolved to defend her doctrine, to obey the Bishops and canons as far as the Methodists conscientiously could; but to avoid to the utmost entailing a schism in the Church. f

Such were the more important decisions in matters of polity and administration reached in the first Methodist Conference of 1744.

* See, however, Tyerman, I. 443, 444, and Smith, Hist, of Wesleyan Meth., I. 229.

Chapter II

shall wesley's powers descend to the conference or to a designated successor?

AT the twenty-sixth annual conference of English Methodism, which opened at Leeds, Aug. i. 1769. two important measures were taken.

The first concerned America: " We have a pressing call from our brethren at New York, who have built a preaching house, to come over and help them. Who is willing to go? " Answer: " Richard Boardman and Joseph Pilmoor." Question: " What can we do further in token of our brotherly love? " Answer: " Letus now make a collection among ourselves. This was immediately done; and, out of it, £50 were allotted towards the payment of the debt, and about £20 given to our brethren for their passage."