History of the Church of the United Brethren in Christ by Daniel Berger

Suggested Citation:
[Identification of Item]. Available at the United Brethren Historical Center website; http://www.huntington.edu/
ubhc/publications/ebooks/
newcomer/title.htm

History of the Church of the United Brethren in Christ

by Daniel Berger

CHAPTER VI

THE MOVEMENT TOWARD A SEPARATE CHURCH ORGANIZATION

I. THE NECESSITY OF A NEW MOVEMENT.

^p.105 The enlightened Christian thought of the present time, a period in which the spirit of fraternal union is so widely cherished between the people of different denominations, regards with disfavor any movement looking toward a new religious denomination. Yet there have been times when Divine Providence manifestly led the way toward such a result, and when the blessing of God followed signally those who for the sake of a better religious life broke away from ecclesiastical relations which fixed upon them a hopeless spiritual bondage, and hindered, or with threats of penalties forbade, the exercise of the freer spiritual activities. Without such a movement the Reformation would have been impossible, and the greater part of Christendom must have remained permanently under the control of a centralized and all-powerful spiritual monarchy. Our divine Lord himself originated a movement which gradually took men out of their old relations in a long and indeed divinely established church, and led to the formation of a new and freer church which remains to the present time. Church history abounds with illustrations of godly men seeking again the blessings of spiritual freedom under new and independent conditions. When true spiritual life is repressed, and dead formalities, associated often even with gross immoralities in low and high places, hold sway in the church, and when those ^p.106 who seek to lead godly lives are mocked and scoffed at and even persecuted by their unspiritual associates in the church, separation sometimes becomes a necessity.

Of Mr. Otterbein it has already been remarked that he was reluctant to take any steps looking toward the organization of a separate denomination. He was warmly attached to the church of his ancestors, the church of his devout and greatly beloved mother, in which his father and all his brothers were honored ministers, and in which he received his education and Christian training. Conservative in disposition, he could not easily break away from traditions which he associated with the most sacred things of life. And, in fact, he never did formally separate himself, nor was he ever separated by any act of the synod, from his place in the German Reformed Church. His name was retained on the ministerial roll of that body up to the end of his life, and until within seven years of the end he continued to attend occasionally its annual sessions. In 1806, however, the last time he was present at a session, he did not attend until he was sent for, and then remained but a short time. For a quarter of a century he had devoted unsparingly the best energies of mind and heart to the service of the Reformed Church, seeking in every place where he held pastoral relations, and in many more which from time to time he visited, to lead the people into a nearer relationship to Christ, and kindle the fires of a more fervent religious life. And in all this much success attended his labors. At Lancaster, at Tulpehocken, at Frederick City, and at York many were, through his earnest preaching and the influence of his pure and godly life, brought into a Christian experience to which they had been strangers before. And then, too, he found men in the ministry of the Reformed Church who fully ^p.107 sympathized with him and his work, some of whom cooperated with him gladly in his spiritual work, but remained in their places in the church. Of some of these something is to be said farther on. It was not a light matter to dissolve, even in part, relations which had so long been dear to him, and which now so strongly bound his heart. Like Mr. Wesley, who, though he was the founder and leader of that great movement in the British Islands and in America which bears the name of Methodism, retained to the end of his life his relationship to the Church of England, Mr. Otterbein was most reluctant to separate himself from his mother church. Mr. Lawrence, speaking of this feeling on his part, says: "Although he had nothing to retract or recall of what he had said or done, and what he was still doing, the dissolving of those relations which, next to God, had possessed his heart, filled his soul with sorrow and anguish, at times, which knew no bounds ; tears would fill his eyes and, in big drops, run down his cheeks; and then again, as if he would lay hold on Heaven for an answer, he would exclaim, 'Oh, how can I give thee up!'"¹ It has been well said that nothing could change or in any degree embitter his feelings toward his ministerial brethren of the Reformed Church, though some among them criticised his course with a severity amounting to persecution.

But were the conditions prevailing in the churches of that time of such a character as to justify a general movement toward separation? Was the religious vitality so low, was the outward life of many church members so far from that which becometh Christ, and was there among unregenerate and ungodly church members such a spirit of persecution toward their more godly neighbors, as to render necessary the holding of separate services ^p.108 and the forming of separate congregations? In answer to these questions, so far as it describes the prevailing conditions of the latter half of the eighteenth century, we quote testimony which no one will hold in doubt, the words of distinguished writers in other churches, as Dr. J. W. Nevin, of the Reformed, and Dr. Benjamin Kurtz, of the Lutheran Church.

Dr. Nevin was one of the strong defenders of the Reformed Church, of the Heidelberg Catechism, and the polity of the church. He could not approve the methods adopted by Mr. Otterbein, but he strongly sets forth the type of the church life which prevailed in Mr. Otterbein's time. In his twenty-eighth lecture on the Heidelberg Catechism, published in 1842, at a time when the Reformed Church had become largely emancipated from the earlier spiritual lethargy, Dr. Nevin says: "To be confirmed, and then to take the sacrament occasionally, was counted by the multitude all that was necessary to make one a good Christian, if only a tolerable decency of outward life were maintained besides, without any regard at all to the religion of the heart. True, serious piety was indeed often treated with open and marked scorn. In the bosom of the church itself it was stigmatized as Schwärmerei, Kopfhängerei, or miserable, driveling Methodism. The idea of the new birth was treated as a Pietistic whimery. Experimental religion in all its forms was eschewed as a new-fangled invention of cunning impostors, brought in to turn the heads of the weak and to lead captive silly women. Prayer-meetings were held to be a spiritual abomination. Family worship was a species of saintly affectation, barely tolerable in the case of ministers (though many of them gloried in having no altar in their houses), but absolutely disgraceful for common Christians. To show an awakened concern on ^p.109 the subject of religion, a disposition to call on God in daily secret prayer, was to incur certain reproach. . . . The picture, it must be acknowledged, is dark, but not more so than the truth of history would seem to require."
No one not of the Reformed Church would dare to write such an arraignment as this, lest he should be guilty of a grave discourtesy toward the people of another denomination. But Dr. Nevin had a right to speak thus historically of his own. And he certainly did not so write with any thought of defending those who were prominent in the revival movements of the period of which he speaks. After referring to the losses sustained by the Reformed Church through individual transfers to other denominations, he goes on to speak of distinct organizations which, he says, "started forth originally from the Reformed Church itself, and have since acquired very considerable volume, made up in great measure of German material, though not all gathered from the Reformed connection. Otterbein, of Baltimore," Dr. Nevin now continues specifically, "at a comparatively early period (1789) became the founder of one of these organizations. . . . He was a good man, who seems to have been driven into a false position by the cold, dead temper that he found generally prevalent in the regular church."²

In full agreement with this representation by Dr. Nevin, is that of Dr. Kurtz, referring to the early portion of the present century. In the Lutheran Observer of January 12, 1855, Dr. Kurtz says: "Some thirty-five years ago [1820], when God in his mercy sanctioned our labors with a glorious outpouring of his Spirit, and for the first time in our ministry granted us a mighty revival, the opposition of the world and the devil was almost ^p.110 unparalleled. A revival in the Lutheran Church was a new thing in that day. We had never heard of but one, and that was in Brother Reck's church, in Winchester, Virginia. He can testify to the bitterness, malevolence, and awful wickedness that characterized the adversaries of such divine visitations, in those days of ignorance, hardness of heart, and spiritual blindness." Dr. B. B. Tyler, in his history of the Disciples of Christ, in the "American Church History Series," after some general observations on "the moral and religious life of our fathers at the close of the eighteenth and beginning of the nineteenth centuries," remarking upon the low plane to which religion had fallen, proceeds to give a view of the religious condition of the colleges of that time. The picture drawn is a startling one, when placed in contrast with the religious state of our colleges at the present time. "When Theodore Dwight," he remarks, "became president of Yale College, in 1795, only four or five students were members of the church. The predominant thought was skeptical. In respect to the Christian faith, the students of the College of New Jersey (Princeton) were not superior to the young men in Yale. The College of William and Mary was a hot-bed of unbelief. Transylvania University, now Kentucky University, founded by Presbyterians, was in the hands of men who repudiated the evangelical faith. At Bowdoin College, at one time in the early part of the nineteenth century only one student was willing to be known as a Christian. Bishop Meade has said that so late as the year 1810, in Virginia, he expected to find every educated young man whom he met a skeptic, if not an avowed unbeliever. Chancellor Kent, who died in 1847, said that in his younger days there were but few professional men who were not unbelievers. Lyman Beecher [the father of Henry Ward ^p.111 Beecher], in his autobiography, says, speaking of the early years of this century and the closing years of the last, that it was 'the day of the Tom Paine school, when boys who dressed flax in the barn read Tom Paine and believed him.' Mr. Beecher graduated from Yale in 1797, and he tells us that the members of the class of 1796 were known to one another as Voltaire, Rousseau, D'Alembert, etc. About this time also wild and undefined expectations were, in many places and by many persons, entertained of a new order of things, and better, about to be ushered in. The Christian religion, it was thought, would soon be thrown to one side as obsolete. ... It is said that in the year 1800 only one Congregational church in Boston remained loyal to the old faith. When the Rev. Dr. E. D. Griffin became pastor of the Park Street church, in 1811, the current of thought and feeling against orthodoxy was so decided and intense that men went to hear him in disguise. They could not endure the ridicule that they would certainly receive from their acquaintances if the fact became known that they had given attention to a sermon delivered by an evangelical minister."³

These glimpses give us a view of the prevailing religious condition of the American colleges, and of one of the chief American cities of that time, outside of the narrow geographical limitations in which the work of Mr. Otterbein and his fellow-laborers was accomplished. But here follows a view that had probably a wide application to the morality of the colonies and of the States after the Revolutionary War:

"Unbelief and immoral living were joined hand to hand. Intemperance prevailed to an alarming extent. To become stupidly drunk did not seriously injure a man's reputation. The decanter was in every home ^p.112 Total abstinence had hardly been thought of. Temperance sermons were not preached ; the pulpit was dumb on this evil. Members of Christian churches in regular standing drank to intoxication. The highest church officials often indulged immoderately in drink. When the physician visited a patient he was offered a stimulant. At marriages, at births, and at the burial of the dead drinking was indulged in. A pastor in New York City, as late as 1820, has left on record the statement that it was difficult to make pastoral visits for a day without becoming, in a measure, intoxicated. Lyman Beecher has given an account of an ordination in which the participating ministers drank until they were in a state bordering on intoxication. The Rev. Daniel Dorchester, D.D., quotes a minister of this period as saying that he could reckon up among his acquaintances forty ministers who were either drunkards or so far addicted to the use of strong drink that their usefulness was impaired."⁴

These statements, so graphically presented, show not only a most unhappy religious condition in the colleges and, in general, among the people not connected with the churches, but also within the sacred circles of the church. Especially do the representations of Dr. Nevin and Dr. Kurtz illustrate the low ebb to which within the churches spiritual life had fallen. It was to reform these conditions, to raise the standard of a truer Christian life, to bring men back to a living faith and a genuine experience of the power of Christ to convert and save the soul, that Mr. Otterbein and those associated with him addressed themselves. With great earnestness and unfaltering purpose they pressed forward their work, and under the attending favor of God achieved most blessed success.

^p.113 II. ASSOCIATES IN THE WORK.

1. Martin Boehm.

Before passing on to speak of the notable initial conference held in 1789, it will be proper here to say something further of some of the associates of Mr. Otterbein in the revival work. A few names will be presented here.

Mr. Boehm continued to preach, as he had now done for many years, the gospel of a true spiritual life among his people, not only to those of his own neighborhood, but to others in various places. It was to be expected that his zeal would in time awaken serious opposition, but it was hardly to be looked for that a man of such manifest sincerity, and of so urbane and kindly a spirit, should by and by be disfellowshiped by his brethren. Yet such was actually the case. A formal indictment was at last made out against him, and he was cited to answer.

Mr. Boehm, like Mr. Otterbein, did not desire to separate himself from the church in which he was brought up, and, like him, was not moved by any unholy ambition to lead in a schismatic movement. It is greatly to the credit of the founders of the United Brethren Church that they did not desire to create division in the body of Christ. It was their noble ambition to elevate the standard of spirituality and godly living in the churches with which they were connected. In this they were in good degree successful, and the earnestness of their labors and the success following aroused against them the worldly and unhallowed spirit which to so unhappy an extent prevailed in the churches of that time. It was this spirit which, arraying itself against them, procured the expulsion of some of them from the communions in which they stood. Among these was Mr. Boehm, of the Mennonite ^p.114 Church, one of the most worthy of the ministers of that denomination. Jesus said to the apostles that they should be cast out of the synagogues, and precisely this happened to these later apostles of the gospel of Jesus, for their fidelity in proclaiming the deeper and richer significance of the precious word of life.

It is evident, however, that in the case of Mr. Boehm this step was taken with sincere regret, and after much forbearance, as his brethren in the Mennonite ministry understood forbearance. In a small volume published so recently as 1875,⁵ is contained at length the history of the proceedings against Mr. Boehm. The history is a translation of a very old document, written more than a century ago. By some singular providence this venerable paper is preserved, and here is a rendering' of it into English, made by Rev. John F. Funk, the author of the volume.

The case against Mr. Boehm is set forth quite elaborately, the paper itself being a communication sent out to churches generally "by the ministers of the Mennonite Church of Lancaster County and vicinity." It is, as Mr. Funk tells us, without date, but certain marks about it point plainly to the period from 1775 to 1780, and this harmonizes with such knowledge as is left to us from other sources. After some general introductory statements the paper proceeds :

"Now, however, it is a well-known fact that between us and Martin Boehm there is, in many points, a difference of views, and we have, at times, for several years already, labored to become more of one mind and to understand each other better, that we might be found faithful laborers in the church of Christ; which, however, has not yet been ^p.115 accomplished, and the matter has, from time to time, become worse. For the reason, however, that the brotherhood do not possess as good a knowledge of the cause and origin of this disagreement between us, which consists of many things both in words and deeds, as we do (although many also are not entirely unacquainted with it), we have thought it prudent to write them and thus explain the matter. In the first place, in that in which we believe that he (Boehm) erred in the doctrine of Christ, he had a great deal to do with forming a union and associating with men (professors) who allow themselves to walk on the broad way, practicing warfare and the swearing of oaths, both of which are in direct opposition to the truths of the gospel and the teachings of Christ."

The other leading points made against him, which, with the above, are discussed at much length, and finally recapitulated, are that Mr. Boehm said the Scriptures might be burned, because they were a dead letter; "that Satan was good and beneficial to man," "that faith cometh from unbelief, life from death, and light out of darkness." It is very evident that Mr. Boehm's brethren heard distorted reports of his preaching, and that the accusations are quite akin to those brought against our Lord, when the witnesses said that they had heard him say that he would destroy the temple, and in three days build it again. The fundamental fact was that as the preaching of Jesus differed from that of the religious teachers of his time, and they excluded him for that reason from their fellowship, so the earnest, spiritual, soul-kindling preaching of Boehm differed from that of his brethren, and they summoned him to answer. To the requirement that he desist from his course, "he said he could not, but if it could be shown him that he had done wrong, he would recall." The vote for his expulsion being finally taken resulted affirmatively, ^p.116 and Mr. Boehm went away doubtless with thoughts of the apostles when "they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his [Christ's] name."⁶
Mr. Funk proceeds to state, following the old manuscript, that Mr. Boehm's followers, such as were members of the Mennonite Church, were also "excluded from the communion and the counsel of the brotherhood, until in true sorrow and penitence they should return and acknowledge their errors both to God and to the church."
Mr. Boehm was a burning and shining light whom God called to a special mission among that people, and happy had it been for them if they had received the divine message from his lips. He took his expulsion in good part, and went on with his work just as he had done before, preaching in his own neighborhood and in numerous other places which he had previously visited. His moral and Christian character had in no wise been assailed, nor had the purity of his motives been placed in doubt. And now, untrammeled by the traditional environments which before had in a degree circumscribed his efforts, he was indeed more free to preach to all who would hear, and the blessing of God rested richly upon his word. Not long afterward he left the care of his farm to his son and gave himself entirely to the work of traveling and preaching.

2. George Adam Guething.

Next in order among the most distinguished co-laborers of Mr. Otterbein, is to be placed the name of George Adam Guething, his own son in the gospel, as Timothy was of Paul, a man of fair culture though simple in life, "mighty in the Scriptures, and eloquent," as was Apollos, the ^p.117 silver-tongued in that company of ardent reformers. Mr. Guething was born not far from the birthplace of Mr. Otterbein, at Nieder Schelden, in Nassau-Siegen, now a part of the province of Hesse-Nassau, Prussia,⁷ on the sixth of February, 1741. Like Mr. Otterbein, he was brought up in the Reformed Church. His education was fair, including some knowledge of the Latin language, as well as the German, and he labored for some time as a miner. He came to America in his eighteenth year, landing, it is thought, at Baltimore, and making, soon afterward, his home at Antietam, "Washington County, Maryland, where he resided during the rest of his life. Here for a considerable time he spent his winters in teaching school, and the rest of the year in quarrying stone and digging wells. The school-house in which he taught seems to have been that located on the farm which became widely known, as still at the present, as the Schnebley (Snavely, or Snively) homestead, a home famous for its large hospitality, the house standing near by the church which was afterward erected, and taking from the older house the name of "school-house." It was afterward known also as Guething's Meeting-house. This place was visited by Mr. Otterbein as early as 1760, when he was located at Frederick, as it had been by other Reformed ministers before him, and we cannot doubt that Mr. Guething received through Mr. Otterbein's preaching the divine impulse which brought him to a true conversion and bore him onward in his noble Christian career through life.

Mr. Guething possessed an active temperament, and was soon seen to be an earnest Christian worker. He held also, in the best sense, the confidence of the people of the community, and was urged by them, during the ^p.118 intervals of ministerial visits, to read to the congregation selected printed sermons on the Sabbath. Mr. Otterbein continued to visit this place after his removal to York, and later on during his life. The gracious fruits following Mr. Guething's work being observed by Mr. Otterbein, he directed that when Mr. Guething arose again to read a sermon some one should take the book out of his hands and leave him to his own resources. This was indeed proposing a heroic measure, but it was actually done. When Mr. Guething arose again to read, after having conducted the preliminary service, a brother, Mr. Jacob Hess, stepped forward and literally carried out Mr. Otterbein's instruction. Mr. Guething was startled at first, but, soon recovering his poise, proceeded to deliver a most impressive address. His position as a minister now became fixed, and the people at Antietam and elsewhere heard gladly the words of life from his lips. He was ordained to the work of the ministry of the Reformed Church, by the laying on of hands, by Mr. Otterbein and Dr. William Hendel, on Whitsuntide, 1783.

Dr. Drury, in his Life of Otterbein, speaks thus of Mr. Guething : He " was a man of good physical constitution, and capable of great endurance. . . . He was possessed of superior gifts. His sympathies were ready and abundant. His understanding of occasions, and faculty of adaptation, were much beyond the usual. He had a voice combining sweetness and power. His method and continued attention to books made him capable of great and increasing usefulness. In his preaching he was earnest, yet deliberate. His addresses to the conscience and feelings were always impressive, and sometimes strikingly moving. As he was in the first place, and in the strictest sense, a product of the revival movement, there were combined in him its strictest moral and logical ^p.119 characteristics. Otterbein and Boehm, though authors in the movement, were themselves formed by earlier and different influences. The distinctive character of Mr. Guething was apparent in all of his course, from first to last."⁸

Of the relations between Mr. Otterbein and Mr. Guething, Dr. Drury further remarks: "In very important respects he exerted a decided influence upon Mr. Otterbein; and on some subjects, in regard to which Mr. Otterbein has given us no expression, Mr. Guething is the exponent of his thoughts. No field of labor was more enjoyable to Mr. Otterbein than that that awaited him at the Antietam, and in no counsels or associations did he more confide or find truer pleasure than in those that he enjoyed at George A. Guething's."⁹

The small log church spoken of as built upon the Schnebley farm, afterward known as the Guething Meetinghouse, is regarded as without doubt the first church erected distinctively for the followers of Mr. Otterbein in the revival movement. The date of its erection is lost, but it is believed to have been before that of Mr. Otterbein's arrival at Baltimore in 1774. The earliest band formed here embraced the names of Mr. Guething, Samuel Baker, Henry Smith, and, soon afterward, Jacob Hess, who has just been mentioned. Whether all in this company of worshipers were of German Reformed antecedents, or what relationship, if any, they assumed to the Reformed Church, is not now known. No deed was made for the ground upon which the humble church was built, the title remaining vested in the owner of the farm. The congregation was found with the United Brethren Church in the further developments of providence.

We find that Mr. Guething is given a place in Mr. Harbaugh's "Fathers of the Reformed Church." Mr. Harbaugh ^p.120 says that he "was prominently identified with the religious movement which resulted in the sect of the United Brethren in Christ, with which he fell in as early as 1772. . . . His name appears in the minutes of synod up to the year 1804, though generally among the absent and excused. At the meeting of synod in Reading, April 29, 1804, complaints were preferred against Mr. Guething on account of disorderly conduct. . . . After a lengthy discussion," the resolution for his expulsion was carried "by a vote of twenty against seventeen." A further quotation from the minutes adds, "He can, however, at any time be restored, on giving evidence of true reformation." Remarking further, Mr. Harbaugh says : " Highly fanatical proceedings on his part seem to have led to his expulsion. He continued ministering in harmony with the Brethren till his death. . . . He spent forty years in the ministry. Though wildly fanatical, and as such badly suited to be a leader of God's people, he seems to have been personally a good man."¹⁰

This account of Mr. Guething's fanaticism, no other charge being laid against him, will not damage his memory in the estimation of United Brethren. It was the kind of fanaticism into which the apostles fell, as regarded from the standpoint of Pharisees and scribes, the fanaticism which has characterized many of the foremost ministers of the United Brethren Church, which gave to the Methodist Church its vast distinctive power to save souls, which distinguishes in strongest contrast the real, living, forward movements of the church from the inertia of spiritual death, but a fanaticism nevertheless which seemed to many of the Reformed ministers of that day, and to Mr. Harbaugh as well, to be out of harmony with the requirements of proper churchly decorum. And, ^p.121 further, it was after all a bare majority that pronounced sentence of excommunication, seventeen of the members voting against the unbrotherly proceeding.
Mr. Harbaugh mentions a Mr. Becker as the chief instigator of the measure of expulsion. He was the same Becker who, two years later, having then become pastor in Baltimore, at a session of the synod of 1806, dealt so harshly with the venerable and saintly Otterbein, then eighty years of age, and for his last time in attendance upon the synod, and shortly afterward, on meeting him, poured out upon him bitter language, ending with a threat to have him expelled from the synod. His vile aspersions, however, failed to produce any effect on the minds of the ministers in the case of Mr. Otterbein. The greater number felt honored in being permitted to retain his name in association with their own, and Mr. Harbaugh, while speaking frankly of what he conceives to have been his errors, pays him distinguished honor in his extended memorial. And yet Mr. Otterbein's and Mr. Guething's offense was the same, with perhaps the difference that Mr. Otterbein, schooled under a more exact training in his early life, was more conservative in his methods.

Mr. Spayth, in his history of the Church, thus places in contrast the varying talents of the three men whose names stand foremost in early United Brethren history: "The talent and ministerial graces of these three brethren-in-chief . . . cannot now be well conceived. . . . Otterbein was argumentative, eloquent, and often terrible. In the elucidation of Scripture he was very clear and full, few being his equal. Boehm was the plain, open, and frank expounder of God's Word, being all animation, all life, often irresistible, like a mighty current, carrying his hearers into deep water. But Brother Guething was more like a spring sun rising on a frost-silvered forest, gradually ^p.122 affording more heat, more light, till you could hear, as it were, the crackling in the forest, and the icy crust beginning to melt and fall away, and like a drizzling shower, ending in a clear and joyous day. Such was Guething. He was the St. John of this clover-leaf; always soft and mellowing; of good parts, having a well-cultivated mind; in conversation cheerful, interesting, and pleasing; and every way a desirable companion. . . . His bland manners, his affability and shining talents, secured for him universal respect and esteem, good congregations, and, what was much more important, access to the hearts and consciences of those who came to hear him."¹¹

Mr. Guething has by some been reckoned among the early bishops of the Church. From Mr. Spayth we learn that he presided at the session of an annual conference at Antietam, his own home, on May 12, 1812,¹² Bishop Boehm having died in March preceding, and Bishop Otterbein being too feeble from age to attend, but there seems to be no record of his having been at any time formally elected to the office of bishop. Had his death not occurred so soon after, just six weeks later, it is altogether probable that he would have been so elected as associate with Bishop Newcomer after the death of Bishop Otterbein. Mr. Spayth, whose time was in part contemporary with these fathers, does not speak of him as a bishop.

3. Other Helpers.

Before passing to other names which became permanently identified with the movement which resulted in the organization of the United Brethren Church, it is proper here to introduce those of some devout men who ^p.123 retained their active connection with the Reformed Church, but gave to Mr. Otterbein their most cordial sympathy, and in some features of his work entered into practical cooperation with him. We have seen that at the session of the synod at which Mr. Guething's name was erased from the records the members were so far from unanimous that the minority sustaining him almost equaled the majority which voted for the exclusion, and also that the name of Mr. Otterbein was retained in honored relation to the end of his life. Indeed, Mr. Harbaugh makes complete claim to Mr. Otterbein for the Reformed Church, and represents that during the later years of his life he lamented having given his influence and support to the movement which grew into a separate denomination. We have abundant evidence that, so far from this being the case, he rejoiced over the results of his labors and those of his brethren with him in encouraging a truer apprehension of the meaning of the gospel and a more devout Christian life. But it is a sincere pleasure to note that while many opposed him, some even to the extent of bitterness and persecution, sometimes closing the doors of their churches against him, there was a considerable number of the Reformed ministers who recognized the great value of his labors, and gladly cooperated with him. Foremost among these was the Rev. Dr. William Hendel, a man of fine education and brilliant pulpit powers. He came to America in 1765, well advanced in years, his first charge being that at Lancaster, where Mr. Otterbein began his work. He was a man of devout spirit, and appropriately recognized as the St. John among the Reformed ministers. Between him and Mr. Otterbein a warm friendship soon sprang up, which continued during life. His high standing is strongly attested by the history of that period, and no less so his earnest sympathy with ^p.124 Mr. Otterbein in his particular work. He adopted in good part the methods of Mr. Otterbein, as, for example, the holding of regular prayer-meetings on week-day evenings. Another of Mr. Otterbein's warm friends was Rev. Daniel Wagner, a student of theology under Dr. Hendel. Mr. Wagner was pastor, at different times, of several of the churches which Mr. Otterbein had served, as at York, Tulpehocken, Frederick City, and a second time at York. Between Mr. Wagner and Mr. Otterbein a lasting friendship was formed, and a regular correspondence was maintained up to the end of Mr. Otterbein's life. In Mr. Harbaugh's "Fathers of the Reformed Church," no man stands with a fairer record than Mr. Wagner. Others of Mr. Otterbein's closer associates, all of them men of high standing in the cœtus, were Rev. Anthony Hautz, also a pupil under Dr. Hendel, Rev. Frederick L. Henop, and Rev. Jacob Weimer. Among these was also the Rev. Benedict Schwope, through whose influence chiefly Mr. Otterbein was induced to become the pastor of the independent church in Baltimore. All these men were fully awake to the peculiar spiritual needs of the time, were thoroughly evangelical in spirit, and accomplished much good in the German Reformed Church.¹³

We are here to note a special form of religious meetings in which these ministers, six in number, including Mr. Otterbein, became interested, and which were maintained with much spiritual profit for a few years. To the reader acquainted with what was known as Pietism in Germany the resemblance between the meetings organized by these men and the Pietistic movement of the old country will readily occur. The movement in Germany, which took ^p.125 its rise in the latter half of the seventeenth century, at Frankfort-on-the-Main, under the leadership of Philip Jacob Spener, was an effort to reawaken and encourage the growth of a true spiritual life in the dead orthodox churches. It did not propose the organization of a separate denomination or church, but sought to gather together for special and private religious services those who desired the experience of a deeper piety and the attainment of a more exemplary outward Christian life. It was but natural that the movement should meet with opposition on the part of the unconverted and worldly-minded who constituted the great body of the German churches. It was also doubtless true that the Pietists fell into excesses, such as must bring inevitable reproach upon those engaged in the movement. But the movement nevertheless accomplished great good in Germany. Many who had until then rested satisfied with their relationship in the church, without any true Christian experience, were aroused from the sleep of a dead orthodoxy to a real life in Christ. The greatest development of the similar movement in England took place under John Wesley, who, after his own conversion, sought to arouse the same genuine spiritual life in the Established Church. The reader will here remember that Mr. Wesley retained to the end of his life his connection with his mother church, while the great movement known as Methodism was inaugurated by him and with the help of his active associates advanced to a place of so great spiritual power among the religious forces of the world.

Mr. Otterbein, under the guidance of the eminent and devout Dr. Schramm, of Herborn, early imbibed Pietistic ideas, and we are here to recall, as above referred to, that among his regular duties as pastor at Ockersdorf was that of holding a weekly prayer-meeting. Regular ^p.126 meetings of a like kind held by him in Tulpehocken have already been spoken of, and here the example—of Mr. Otterbein was followed by Dr. Hendel when, some years later, he succeeded to that charge.

The special meetings now to be spoken of began to be held in the month of May, 1774, the year and month of Mr. Otterbein's coming to Baltimore. Among the ministers themselves some form of bond was adopted, under the name of "The United Ministers." The particular form of their procedure was the organization into bands, or unions, of those in their congregations who desired to interest themselves in the promotion of their own personal piety, and to seek also for the encouragement of a like deeper religious experience in the hearts of others. In this they adopted the precise method of Mr. Spener in Germany. Such bands, or classes, were organized by each of the ministers in his own congregation, and, as far as practicable, in other congregations having no pastors, which they visited. In some of the congregations, where there was a general acquiescence on the part of the members, two or more classes were formed, the men and the women holding their meetings separately. Regular leaders were appointed for the classes, thus showing the beginning of a feature of United Brethren polity which has been maintained since. Some of these leaders, finding thus a special field for the exercise of their gifts, in time became ministers. Among these we find prominent the name of George Adam Guething.

The United Ministers for two years held regularly semiannual meetings for the purpose of hearing reports of the work, and planning for its successful prosecution. The minutes of these meetings were some years ago discovered at Pipe Creek, near Baltimore, where Rev. Benedict Schwope was pastor. A transcript of those of ^p.127 one or two of the meetings will here possess a special interest as illustrating what was sought to he done and the methods followed. The original is in the handwriting of Mr. Schwope, who was secretary for the organization.¹⁴

May 29, 1774.

In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

At our meeting at Pipe Creek the following action was taken respecting our several congregations:

1. Concerning the congregation at Baltimore it was resolved that, besides the public meeting on Sunday, the male members shall meet twice a week in two classes; to wit, the class in the upper part of the city on Tuesday evening, and of this class Leonard Herbach is appointed leader [Aufseher]; the other class, of which Henry Weidner is leader, meets on Friday evening. The female members are to meet separately, every Tuesday afternoon.

2. The members at Pipe Creek [die Peiff-Kricker] have also formed themselves into two classes. David Schreiber and Michael Huebener are appointed leaders of the first, and Uhly Aeckler and Hans Fischer of the second class. These are to meet every Sunday ; and no one is to withdraw without good reason.

3. The members at Sam's Creek [die Sam's Kricker] are to constitute a single class. Adam Lehman and Martin Cassel are appointed leaders. They are also to hold their meetings on Sunday.

4. The members at Fredericktown [die Friedrichstowner] have organized but one class. They are to meet on Sunday evening, and propose to elect a leader for themselves.

5. The members at Antietam [die Antitemer] are to meet every Sunday, in two classes. George Adam Gueding [Guething] and Samuel Becker are appointed leaders. They are to meet alternately at the church and at Conrad Schnaebeli's [Schnebley, or Snavely], or wherever else the leaders may direct.

The ground and object of these meetings is to be, that those thus united may encourage one another, pray and sing in unison, and watch over one another's conduct. At these meetings they are to be especially careful to see to it that family worship is regularly maintained. All those who are thus united are to take heed that no disturbances occur among them, and that the affairs of the congregations be conducted and managed in an orderly manner.

^p.128 Resolved to meet again on the first Sunday in October, at D. Schreiber's. Done on the date above mentioned.

W. Otterbein.

B. Schwope.

The second meeting was held on the date and at the place named in the previous minutes. A further organization of classes is the principal feature of interest. The minutes of this meeting are signed by all the above-named ministers, six in number, Mr. Otterbein's name standing first, and Mr. Schwope's last, as secretary. The third meeting, the minutes of which follow, was held at Frederick City. The record is chiefly that of reports from the several charges.

Fredericktown, June 12, 1775.

In the name of our blessed Lord. Amen.

We, William Otterbein, William Hendel, Frederick Henop, Jacob Weimer, Daniel Wagner, and Benedict Schwope, have met in this town, according to the resolution passed at our meeting held last October at Pipe Creek, and after due examination the following was found to be the condition of the congregations or classes:

1. The friends in this town are at peace, and continue their private meetings twice a week, besides regularly attending the service in the church.

2. The friends at Pipe Creek are equally prosperous, appear serious in their conduct, and, it is hoped, derive a blessing from their meetings.

3. Those at Sam's Creek are at peace, and appear serious.

4. Those at Antietam are again at peace, after a slight disturbance, and meet on Sundays.

5. Those at Baltimore are at peace ; but it is to be feared and guarded against that with their good order and regular meetings they do not take the appearance for the reality.

6. Those at Sharpsburg remain in their previous condition. They hold meetings. There is no reason to imagine evil, but it might be wished that their condition were more prosperous.

7. Those at Funkstown number only a few families, and as they live close together they meet according to their convenience. At this place progress is very desirable.

9. The friends at Canawaken [Conewago] (who were mentioned at our last meeting at Pipe Creek) continue to meet on Sunday, besides going regularly to church, as is our universal order. We have reason to hope for good results.

^p.129 10. Certain friends in Hagerstown were interested, but none of them have come to our present meeting. We hope the Lord will kindle among them a flame of love and holy zeal.

11. Resolved that our next meeting be held at Baltimore, on Sunday, October 15.

Finally, we observe that since our first meeting, which is now more than a year ago, no disturbance has arisen in any one of the aforesaid classes and congregations—except a little trouble at Antietam, which has been covered up with the mantle of charity. In this may be seen the fruits of good discipline, in that at least three hundred souls have remained so long at peace, and we hope in the blessing of the Lord; and may doubtless be preserved in this condition. We hope and desire that the Lord, the merciful, would daily add to their numbers.

Written and done on the date aforesaid, by order of the United Ministers, by

Benedict Schwope, Secretary

The minutes of other meetings following are in character much like the preceding. On October 15 a meeting was held at Baltimore, agreeably to the resolution previously adopted, and another followed, at Hagerstown, on June 2, 1776.

This meeting of June 2 is the last of which any minutes remain, and whether any succeeding meetings were held is therefore not known. There are indications that the unfavorable attention of the cœtus began to be drawn toward this movement of the United Ministers. It would be quite impossible that the cœtus could ever have regarded it with approval. And the fact that at this June meeting a license to preach was ordered to be granted to an applicant, a Mr. Henry Weidner, must doubtless have had the appearance of a schismatic procedure. The license was not signed by Mr. Wagner, who may, however, not have been present at the last meeting of the ministers, on June 2. It is also known that Mr. Wagner and Dr. Hendel, who were somewhat more conservative than Mr. Otterbein, began to have some apprehensions as to the results which might grow out of his more decisive^p.130 measures. By this time also the War of the Revolution was in earnest progress, and it seems quite probable that, with the prevailing public excitement, the meetings were now suspended. At the June meeting another was arranged for, to be held on October 20. It is probable that it was never held.
There is good reason for believing that Mr. Otterbein cherished the hope of seeing this revival movement spread more extensively among the Reformed churches, as Pietism had done in Germany, greatly to the spiritual profit of the German churches. And he had the greater ground for such hope in the fact that some of the foremost men in the cœtus, notably Dr. Hendel, heartily cooperated with him. But such hope ended in disappointment, and the necessity soon appeared of giving attention to the work of revivals among the churches which he visited, without such formal cooperation. It must be borne in mind that this work, so far as the association of the United Ministers was concerned, was all within the Reformed Church. Mr. Schwope alone, of the company of the United Ministers, remained in permanent cooperation with Mr. Otterbein. The other men, however, carried with them from this association a benign spiritual power that told during the rest of their lives upon their own work, conducted in the regular forms of the Reformed Church, in abundance of blessed fruits. Nor did the severance of this union of consecrated men draw away the hearts of any of them from Mr. Otterbein. The most intimate and confidential of his earthly friends up to the end of his life was Daniel Wagner, and between himself and Dr. Hendel the relations of the highest esteem and warmest cordiality existed permanently.

Of the laymen who were appointed leaders of classes, a number, as we have already seen, developed into ^p.131 preachers, and these joined themselves to the work under Mr. Otterbein. Among these was Henry Weidner, who was licensed to preach by the United Ministers; also Adam Lehman, Leonard Herbach (Harbaugh), Peter Kemp, and George Adam Guething. The last of these, however, had been a recognized preacher, unordained, since 1774. He was regularly ordained, as already mentioned, by Mr. Otterbein and Dr. Hendel, in 1783, a fact which may be accepted as proof of Dr. Hendel's continued friendly cooperation with Mr. Otterbein.

In this part of our history have been traced more definitely the relations of ministers of the German Reformed Church to the work which was developing under Mr. Otterbein, leaving out of view for a time the Mennonite branch of the general movement. The reader will see presently that during these years there was in progress among the Mennonites a steady and growing activity, and that in the first formal conference, that of 1789, to which attention is presently to be directed, their distinguished leader, Mr. Boehm, and others of his brethren, were present to participate in its counsels.

¹ Lawrence's History, p. 269.

² Quoted by Dr. Drury in Life of Otterbein; as also the extract following.

³ American Church History Series, Vol. XII., pp. 2, 3.

⁴ Ibid, Vol. XII., pp. 3, 4.

⁵ The Mennonite Church and Her Accusers, by Rev. John F. Funk, Elkhart, Indiana, 1878.

⁶ Acts 5: 41.

⁷ Drury's Life of Otterbein, p. 149.

⁸ Pp. 151, 152.

⁹ P. 152.

¹⁰ Vol. II., p. 398.

¹¹ Spayth's History, p. 60.

¹² Ibid., p. 129.

¹³ See biographical sketches in Mr. Harbaugh's Fathers of the Reformed Church, Vol. II.

¹⁴ The reader is here referred to Dr. Drury's Life of Otterbein, pp. 194-202, where the entire series of minutes appears. They are reprinted from a translation of Rev. Dr. J. H. Dubbs, published by him in the Reformed Quarterly.



	Contact Us \| 2303 College Avenue Huntington, IN 46750 \| 1.800.642.6493 \| Copyright 2004