vote of 153 yeas to 13 nays, etc. The nays did not include a single prominent southern name.

The only remaining point of interest in this memorable, epoch-making Council of the Church is the adoption of the final report of the Committee on Slavery. It proposed that the action of the General Conference of 1840 relative to receiving testimony of colored persons in trials of white members of the Church be rescinded; but declared that it was inexpedient to take further action concerning the subject of slavery. Thus, with nearly a two-thirds majority of the body on their side, the abolitionists allowed the Discipline to stand as aforetime, according to which the mere holding of slaves was no offense against the law of the Church in states where the laws did not admit of emancipation.

The chapter on slavery remained untouched until the General Conference of 1864. Then, with the awful echoes of a colossal civil war resounding in their ears, that body adopted and sent down to the annual conferences a proposition to change the General Rules of the Church, so as to make "slaveholding," as well as "buying and selling slaves" a bar to Church membership. But before the official action of the annual conferences could be officially reported to the Great Council of 1868, God and Abraham Lincoln and the Government of the United States had stamped out slavery from the nation.

CHAPTER V.

FRATERNAL RELATIONS.

THE appearance of a fraternal delegation from the Meth

odist Episcopal Church, South, at the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church at Baltimore in the year 1876 is a part of the greatest miracle ever recorded in ecclesiastical history since the Christian era began. It affords a proof not only of the supernatural possibilities of saving grace, but also gives a sweet suggestion of that depth of love and unity in the hearts of all true Methodists which floods and fires can not drown or bury. In order to a full appreciation of this great event, a brief review of the history of those memorable years between 1844 and 1876 must here be given.

Immediately on the adjournment of the General Conference of 1844 the southern delegates held an informal meeting and, without waiting for the action of the annual conferences on the Plan of Separation, they determined to call a convention of their ministers at Louisville, Ky., on the first of May, 1845. During the year which followed the vast majority of the southern ministers and members gave in their adhesion to the Plan of Separation, and prepared to become members of a Southern Methodist body; but some in the border conferences refused.

The Louisville convention, acting upon what they deemed their undoubted right under the action of the General Conference of 1844, solemnly renounced all allegiance to the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and enacted that the annual conferences represented at that convention "are hereby constituted a separate ecclesiastical connection, based on the Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and comprehending the doctrines and entire moral, ecclesiastical, and economical rules and regulations of said Discipline; except only in so far as verbal alterations may be neces

sary to a distinct organization: and to be known by the style and title of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South." (Dr. Myers on the Disruption: as quoted by McTyeire, pp. 642, 643.)

Pursuant to the action of this organizing convention, their first General Conference met at Petersburg, Va., on the first of May, 1846. The body numbered 87 members. John Early presided until the arrival of Bishop Andrew. Bishop Soule, who had determined to cast in his lot with the south, soon after appeared and both these bishops, without any further form of election, were invited to take up the exercise of episcopal functions in the new organization. A few days later Dr. William Capers and Dr. Robert Paine were added to the episcopal force of the new Church, and as the entire Discipline and doctrines of the original body had been adopted, it was assumed that the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, was a divided part of that body, and under the Plan of Separation entitled to their pro rata share of the denominational property.

As a pledge of their good faith, this first General Conference of their Church elected a fraternal delegate, the Rev. Lovick Pierce, D. D., to convey their fraternal salutations to the next ensuing session of the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church. The failure of that mission was an event deeply to be deplored, and the history thereof is not at all creditable to the body which turned this messenger away.

Meanwhile some of the northern conferences had failed to ratify the Plan of Separation, and the claim began to be set up, that, on this account, the Southern Church was not entitled to any share in the property of the Book Concern. They had been pushed to a position from which retreat was impossible, and yet it was alleged that they were "seceders," because northern conferences had denied them the right to go in peace. The south had done all that was possible on its part to carry out the Plan of Separation, as mutually agreed upon in the General Conference of 1844, and then to be called "seceders" was more than flesh and blood could bear. Commissioners on both sides were appointed for the adjustment of difficulties, but those of the north refused to act, and referred the south to the General Conference of 1848.

That assembly has been well characterized as "a reactionary

body elected in a revolutionary period." Very few of the members in 1844 reappeared. The temper of the Conference was averse to a Southern Methodism; nearly all its members having been elected on a pledge to repudiate the Plan of Separation. Early in the session, Dr. Lovick Pierce, the fraternal delegate from the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, presented himself and his credentials, to which, two days later, the Conference made this reply:

"WHEREAS, A letter from the Rev. L. Pierce, D. D., delegate of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, proposing fraternal relations between the Methodist Episcopal Church and the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, has been presented to this Conference; and

"WHEREAS, There are serious questions and difficulties existing between the two bodies; therefore,

"Resolved, That while we tender to the Rev. Dr. Pierce all personal courtesies, and invite him to attend our sessions, this General Conference does not consider it proper at present to enter into fraternal relations with the Methodist Episcopal Church, South." (Minutes of General Conference 1848, p. 21.)

The Conference did, however, express its willingness to hear communications from Dr. Pierce relative to questions at issue between the two bodies. The above resolutions were, after the amendment just recited, adopted by a vote of 147. No one voted nay. Dr. Pierce made a dignified response to this ungracious procedure, saying:

"You will regard this communication as final on the part of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. She will never renew the offer of fraternal relations between the two great bodies of Wesleyan Methodists in the United States. But the proposition can be renewed at any time, either now or hereafter, by the Methodist Episcopal Church. And if ever made upon the basis of the Plan of Separation, as adopted by the General Conference of 1844, the Church South will cordially entertain the proposition."

On the 12th of May the commissioners from the Church South, who had been referred to the General Conference of 1848 for the settlement of the claims of the Southern Church upon the property of the Book Concern, made their appearThe result was that on May 24th an almost unanimous vote was passed, declaring that "there exists no power in the Methodist Episcopal Church to pass any act which, either

ance.

directly or indirectly, effectuates, authorizes or sanctions a division of said Church." (Journal of General Conference of 1848, p. 43 and p. 73.) This repudiation of the Plan of Separation barred the Conference, as it was intended to do, from any consideration of the property claims of the Southern Church.

The southern brethren could not fail to be impressed by this change of attitude as to the powers of the General Conference. In 1844, Dr. Hamline had carried the great majority of the body enthusiastically with him while he showed that the Conference possessed plenary powers, and was entitled to take whatever action it pleased, except in so far as such action might be prohibited by the Restrictive Rules. There was no Restrictive. Rule which forbade the Conference to expel or suspend a bishop without form of trial; therefore the Conference had the power and right to expel or suspend Bishop Andrew. But now the opposite theory was maintained. It was somehow discovered that the General Conference possessed no powers, except such as were specifically given to it by the Discipline; therefore the Conference of 1844 had no authority to enact a Plan of Separation, and that of 1848 had no power to divide any Church property; no such powers having been set down in the Discipline. This latter doctrine was as convenient for the majority in 1848 as was the opposite doctrine for the majority in 1844.

Failing thus to obtain what they believed to be their rights, the Church South "appealed to Cæsar." And "Cæsar" vindicated them.

If there is anything that will provoke eternal enmity between brethren, it is a suit at law over an inheritance. For years this famous case dragged its slow length along through one court after another until, on the final appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, it was decided in favor of the Church South, and under its judgment the Book Concern was compelled to give over to them the publishing-houses at Richmond, Charleston, and Nashville, all accounts due from the south, and two hundred and seventy thousand dollars in money; the northern parties to the litigation being also obliged to pay the cost of suit.

All this while the troubles in the border conferences had