Another matter that caused no little contention was the report of the Committee on the Itinerancy, concerning the journals of the New England Conference. It was as follows:

"The New England Conference, as has appeared to the committee, have been during the last four years disorganizing in their proceedings, and appear to have pursued a course destructive to the peace, harmony, and unity of the Church.

"1. They have done so when they have gone beyond the proper jurisdiction of an annual conference, and pronounced upon the characters of brethren who are not at all responsible to them.

"2. The journals of that conference exhibit no grounds on which they acquitted Orange Scott, who, by direct implication, had been found guilty, by a large majority of the last General Conference, of publishing statements concerning members of that body, which were gross misrepresentations, or flagrant and scandalous falsehoods.

"3. The same absence exists of all showing of reasons for acquitting Orange Scott and La Roy Sunderland on charges of evildoing, growing out of abolition agitation in which they were engaged. . . ."

Pending the vote, Bishop Hedding, who had spent much of his life in New England, earnestly entreated that the severe censure passed upon the New England Conference might be omitted from the report. Against this some of the southern delegates protested, declaring that the facts were as stated in the report; that the action of the conference in question had been "disorganizing," and that "such action must inevitably sunder the Church." After much dispute, ominous of the earthquake that was coming four years later, the request of Bishop Hedding was acceded to, and the report was adopted without the sharp censure of the New England Conference.

Among other persuasive words the bishop had said: "The excitement in the north is diminishing, and if we do nothing to revive it, it is hoped that it may die away." Vain hope! Abolition or disruption was the sole alternative forced upon the Church, only one of which events was possible. There was, indeed, a poor affair in existence, to wit: The American Colonization Society, whose proposal was to assist in sending the slaves back to Africa-a scheme about as sensible as would be a proposition now to send all Hibernians back to Ireland, or all the Germans back to Fatherland.

THE

CHAPTER IV.

SLAVERY (CONTINUED).

HE period between the General Conferences of 1840 and 1844 has a very significant history. The discouragement of the reformers over the action, or rather the non-action, of the Conference of 1840, from which they had hoped so much and realized so little, was intense. Even the eloquent and enthusiastic Orange Scott was led to the conclusion that action by the Church was hopeless without the action of the state. Thence came the movement for the secession of that considerable body which in 1842 organized themselves under the name of the Wesleyan Methodist Connection, of which Scott was one of the leaders. This new body retained the doctrines and some of the discipline of the parent Church; but, of course, made the holding of slaves a bar to membership. They prospered in a small way. During the quadrennium from 1840 to 1844 about twenty thousand Methodists left the old Church and joined the new.

For a time this relieved the pressure of the high contention on slavery, and it is affirmed that the event was followed by a period of unprecedented prosperity, during which the increase in the Church far exceeded anything known in its previous history, the gain in membership for the four years being more than three hundred and fifty thousand." (McTyeire's "History of Methodism," page 612.) The bishop quotes in this connection a text from the Acts of the Apostles: "Then had the Churches rest throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria, and were edified."

But it is not safe to draw conclusions concerning the Divine purpose from Divine providence alone. Now, as in the instance above cited, the "rest" was for no great length of time.

The memorable General Conference of 1844 assembled in the Greene Street Church, in the city of New York, on Wednesday, the 1st of May, Bishops Soule, Hedding, Andrew, Waugh, and Morris being present. The entire number of delegates was

171. Of these, 119 were from annual conferences in free states, and 52 from those in slave states. These figures were portentous of war, and of a war that was almost certain to end in the carrying out of the threat made by the southern men in the General Conference of 1840.

In spite of the departure of the Wesleyans, the free states had gained heavily on the slave states, so that when the General Conference of 1844 had been fully set in array it was evident that "the Rubicon" was now reached, and would undoubtedly be crossed. As in former sessions, the line of separation between conservatives and radicals on the slavery question was not the geographical one; but that state of the case had been much more nearly reached than in the session of 1840.

ABOLITIONISM.

The anti-slavery men had no longer a fiery leader like Orange Scott. Calmer counsels had prevailed; but the calmness was a real gain to their cause.

An awful sense of the situation seemed to pervade the assembly, which was heightened by the request of the bishops that the Episcopal Address might be read with closed doors, which was done. But that document, instead of dealing chiefly with the subject which was uppermost in all minds, dwelt largely upon the position and prerogatives of the bishops themselves. This matter, no doubt, had been impressed upon their attention by their stormy experiences in some of the northern conferences, in which they had attempted to lead or control the proceedings in the interest of peace.

On the third day of the session a memorial from the Providence Conference was presented by Frederick Upham, which in very incisive language made an attack on slavery. In announcing the usual committees none had been appointed on slavery; but now, on motion of John A. Collins, of Baltimore, such a committee was raised, consisting of one member from each annual conference. If this committee actually considered all the anti-slavery documents poured in upon them, they must have been a very hard-working body. There were no less than thirty memorials, protests, etc., from Churches in the New

Hampshire Conference alone. They were of various kinds. Some contained censures on the conservative action of the bishops in their efforts to keep down abolition excitement; some denounced the attitude of the Church on slavery; some fought over again the battle of 1840, on the admission of testimony of colored persons in trials of white members of the Church; while others denounced in no gentle terms the iniquity of slavery itself, and insisted that no person guilty of the sin of slaveholding was fit for the fellowship of any Christian communion. The chairman of this committee was George Peck, of New York. Next to him was that distinguished Methodist historian, Abel Stevens; but he, being only an alternate, soon gave place to his principal, on that member's appearance.

The first great contention of the session was over the appeal of Francis A. Harding from the action of the Baltimore Conference, by which body he had been expelled "for refusing to manumit certain slaves which came into his possession by his marriage." It appeared in evidence that by the laws of Maryland the title and ownership inhered in the wife, and that a slave could not be emancipated and continue to reside in the state. On the other hand, it was contended that the appellant knew that the Baltimore Conference did not tolerate slaveholding on the part of its members. Besides, there was plenty of free territory to which the offending brother might have removed. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, by a vote of 117 to 56.

It may seem strange that the Baltimore Conference, which, as has been seen, was a mixed conference, should have made such stringent regulations as those under which Harding had been expelled. But it is said by some who can recall the events of that period, that the anti-slavery sentiments of men of southern birth and education, when once they had come to realize the wickedness of slavery, were more intense than in the case of northern abolitionists, who knew nothing of the institution by observation and experience. Hence, doubtless, the fact that two members of the Baltimore delegation led off in the bitter fight over the suspension of Bishop Andrew from the functions of the episcopal office.

This was the fall of the shadow of impending doom. Be

hind the case of Harding was that of Bishop Andrew, who, by bequest as well as by marriage, had come to be a slaveholder. If the General Conference did not spare the preacher, could they be expected to spare the bishop? And the anti-slavery majority was so hopelessly strong! No wonder that the southern delegations began to gather their robes about them in preparation for their sad departure.

But the south would make one more effort in the direction of preserving the unity of the Church. Some of them, as already seen, had in 1840 thrown out threats of dissolution if the abolitionists did not cease their agitation; but now, when they were brought face to face with that awful catastrophe, the best men among them held their breath. It was the calm and gentle Dr. Capers, of South Carolina, one of the missionary secretaries of the Church, a man beloved and trusted both by north and south, who at that portentous hour moved the following preamble and resolutions:

"In view of the distracting agitation which has so long prevailed on the subject of slavery and abolition, and especially the difficulties under which we labor in the present General Conference on account of the relative position of our brethren North and South on this perplexing question; therefore,

"Resolved, That a committee of six be appointed to confer with the bishops, and report within two days, as to the possibility of adopting some plan, and what, for the permanent pacification of the Church."

The resolution was seconded by Dr. Olin, of New York, the distinguished southern scholar and orator, who had succeeded. Wilbur Fisk in the presidency of the Wesleyan University at Middletown, Conn. The motion prevailed, and the following brethren were named as the committee: Dr. Capers, of South Carolina; Dr. Olin, of New York; William Winans, of Mississippi; John Early, of Virginia; Leonidas L. Hamline, of Ohio; and Phineas Crandall, of Massachusetts. In seconding the resolution offered by Dr. Capers-who shortly became a bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South-Dr. Olin said:

"... It appears to me that we stand committed on this question by our principles and views of policy, and neither of us dare move a step from our position. Let us keep away from the controversy until brethren from opposite sides have come together. I