: THE General Conferences OF THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH FROM 1792 to 1896. PREPARED BY A LITERARY STAFF UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF REV- LEWIS CURTS, D. D., PUBLISHING AGENT OF THE WESTERN METHODIST BOOK CONCERN. (Etnrittttaft CTJETS & JENNINGS. Bbuj J$oxk: EATON & MAINS. 1900. Copyright, 1900, By the Western Methodist Book Concern. a; PREFACE. In preparing a history of the General Conference, the greater part of our information must be derived from the Journals of that body. These Journals are of varying full- ness, the earlier ones being extremely meager, and some of them giving but little more than catch-word hints of Confer- ence action, and containing none of the reports or addresses. They were not originally intended for publication, and the Minutes as printed seem to be only the vague notes from which the secretary might prepare—though he did not— full report of the proceedings. The later Journals are full and, since 1848, there has been issued a daily paper, con- taining a verbatim transcript of the debates, addresses, resolu- tions, and reports. These, and other bound volumes, have all been consulted in the preparation of this work, especially in part two. As no copy was ever found of the Journal for 1792, the General Conference of 1892 directed the Publishing Agents to employ some one to reproduce it, as nearly as could be done, from whatever sources of information were accessible. This task was committed to Rev. T. B. Neely, D. D., than whom none is more competent to accomplish it. The result in iv Preface. of his labors appears in the present volume. This may be accepted as tiie full Journal of proceedings of that Confer- ence, and it is an important addition to our Methodist historical literature. The proceedings of all the other General Conferences are given only in abstract. These have been prepared by com- petent writers, employed by the Western Methodist Book Concern, expressly for use in this volume. Only the more important actions are referred to ; but, in the two parts, the chronological and the topical, it is believed that the average student of our Church history will find all that he cares to know about the great Governing Conference. For more minute information as to what was said or suggested, he must examine the Journals themselves, and the files of the Daily Advocate. LEWIS CURTS. Cincinnati, March, 1900. CONTENTS. PART I.—CHRONOLOGICAL. .TEAR, PRINCIPAL TOPICS. PAGE. 1792. Establishment of the General Conference.—Schism of James O'Kelly.—Eevision of Discipline, 1 1796. Church Polity.—Chartered Fund Established.—Form of Deed for Church Property.—Local Preachers, 5i 1800. Presiding Elders.—Slavery.—Ministerial Support, 59 1804. Book Concern (Eemoved to New York).—Slavery, 65 1808. Delegated General Conference.—Eestrictive Rules.—Pre- siding Elders, „ 70 1812. First Written Episcopal Address (from Bishop McKen- dree) . —Pastoral Address to the Church.—Two Book Agents, c . 75 1816. Slavery.—"Methodist Magazine" Ordered.—Episcopacy, 79 1820. Election of Presiding Elders.—Revision of Hymn Book —Status of Local Preachers.—Book Concern, 84 1824. The Presiding Elder Question. — Lay Representation (Refused), 90 1828. The "Radical" Movement.—Presiding Elder Question Settled, 99 1832. Missions.—Canada Claims, . 107 ' 1836. Abolitionism, . , 113 1840. Slavery. — Temperance. —Woman's Magazine ("Ladies' Repository") Ordered, 121 , — vi Contents. TEAR. PRINCIPAL TOPICS. PAGE. 1844. Slaveholding in the Ministry. —Plan of Separation Adopted, 128 1848. Plan of Separation Pronounced Void. —Kelations of the General Conference to the Church, South.—Temper- ance. —Revision of Hymn Book, 139 1852. Mission Interests.—Lay Delegation Considered.—Church Sittings, 146 1856. Slavery. —Missionary Bishops.—Lay Delegation, 151 1860. Slavery. — Lay Delegation (Submitted to Vote of the Church) 157 1864. Pastoral Term Extended. — Lay Delegation Approved. —Church Extension.—Slavery, 162 1868. Lay Delegation Question. — Freedmen's Aid Society. Board of Education, 169 1872. Lay Delegates Admitted.—Ecclesiastical Jurisprudence. —Book Concern, 177 , 1876. Separate Conferences for Colored Preachers.—Revision of Hymn Book, 188 1880. Ecumenical Conference.—Rights of Women Denned. Use of Tobacco.—Colored Bishops, 196 1884. New Church Enterprises.—Marriage and Divorce, 202 1888. Eligibility of Women as Delegates.—Constitutional Com- mission. —Deaconess Work Authorized, •. 208 1892. Young People's Societies (Epworth League).-1- The Woman Question.—Constitutional Commission Re- port (Indefinitely Postponed), 211 1896. Commission on Organic Law.—Women Delegates.—Con- ference Evangelists.—Deaconesses to be Consecrated, 222 Contents. vii PART II.—TOPICAL. CHAPTER. PAGE. I. The Ministry, 233 II. The Ministry (Continued), 250 III. Slavery, 271 IV Slavery (continued), 290 V Fraternal Eelations, 310 VI. Lay Delegation : Men—Women, 332 VII. Church Institutions and Societies, 352 VIII. Church Work in the South, 372 IX. The Constitution, 390 X. The Constitution (Continued), 407 PART I. CHRONOLOGICAL. The General Conferences. 1792. (BY REV. THOS. B. NEELY, D. D., LL. D.) THE first quadrennial General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States of America met in the city of Baltimore, Maryland,' on Thursday, the first day of November, in the year Seventeen Hundred and Ninety-two. This General Conference had been regularly called to meet in Baltimore at that date. Every preacher in full membership in any Annual Conference was entitled to a seat in the General Conference, and the attendance was very general. Bishop Thomas Coke and Bishop Francis Asbury were present, and presided; Dr. Coke, as senior, doubtless presiding at the beginning of the session. On the first day the Conference appointed a committee of the oldest preachers and a few of the younger ministers to prepare business for consideration and action by the Confer- ence. When a majority of the committee agreed upon a proposition, and especially upon any alteration in the form of Discipline, it was to report to the Conference for its decision. Subsequently the membership of the committee was increased. The intention of the Conference in the creation of the com- mittee was to expedite business ; but as after test it was found that it did not prevent or shorten discussions in the Confer- ence, the plan of working through a committee was abandoned, and the committee was discharged. After that, any member of the Conference was at liberty to present directly to the body any matter he might desire. On the first day rules of order were adopted. One rule was as follows: " It shall take two-thirds of all the Conference 1 2 Tlie General Conference. [1792. to make a new rule or abolish an old one ; but a majority may alter or amend any rule." One rule as to debate was, " That each person, if he choose, shall have liberty to speak three times on each motion." SECOND DAY—FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 2. On the second day of the session, the Rev. James O'Kelly, of Virginia, offered an amendment to the law making it the duty of the Bishop "to fix the appointments of the Preachers for the several circuits," so that preachers might have the right of appeal from the appointment given by the Bishop to the Annual Conference. The amendment was as follows : "After the Bishop appoints the Preachers at Conference to their several circuits, if any one think himself injured by the appointment, he shall have liberty to appeal to the Conference and state his objections; and if the Conference approve his objections, the Bishop shall appoint him to another circuit." The proposed amendment led to a long and animated dis- cussion. As the matter related more to the administration of Bishop Asbury than to that of Bishop Coke, who was fre- quently absent from the country, Bishop Asbury declined to preside, and also absented himself from the session during the pendency of this question, and sent to the Conference the following letter: My Dear Brethren,—Let my absence give you no pain—Dr. Coke presides. I am happily excused from assisting to make laws by which myself am to be governed ; I have only to obey and execute. I am happy in the consideration that I never stationed a preacher through enmity or as a punishment. I have acted for the glory of God, the good of the people, and to promote the usefulness of the preachers. Are you sure, that if you please yourselves, that the people will be as fully satisfied? They often say. " Let us have such a preacher ;" and sometimes, " We will not have such a preacher—we will sooner pay him to stay at home." Perhaps I must say, " His appeal forced him upon you." I am one—ye are man^. I am as willing to serve you as ever. I want not to sit in any man's way. I scorn to solicit votes ; I am a very trembling, poor creature to hear praise or dispraise. Speak your minds freely but ; remember, you are only making laws for the present time; it may be, that as in some other things, so in this, a future day may give you further light. I am yours, etc., Francis Asbury. J 1792. The General Conference. 3 After considerable debate upon Mr. O'Kelly's proposition, the Rev. John Dickins moved that the question be divided thus: "First—Shall the Bishop appoint the preachers to the circuits? Second—Shall a preacher be allowed an appeal?*' The first part giving the Bishop the power of appointment being put to vote, it was carried unanimously. On the second part, as to the preacher having the right of appeal, a question was raised as to whether the .proposition was a new rule or only an amendment to an old rule, and the Con- ference decided the law point by voting that it was only an amendment to an old rule. THE THIRD DAY—SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 3.