 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECOND PERIOD—1774-1800 Ch.4—Mr. Otterbein called to Baltimore Ch.5—The Otterbein Church in Baltimore Ch.6—The Movement Toward a Separate Church Organization Ch.7—The First and Second Conferences THIRD PERIOD—1800-1815 Ch.10—The Conferences of 1801-1814 Ch.12—The Departure of the Leaders FOURTH PERIOD—1815-1837 Ch.13—The First General Conference—1815 Ch.14—The General Conferences of 1817-1833 FIFTH PERIOD—1837-1885 Ch.15—The General Conferences of 1837 and 1841 Ch.16—The General Conferences of 1845 and 1849 Ch.17—The General Conferences of 1853-1861 Ch.18—The General Conferences of 1865-1881 SIXTH PERIOD—1885-1897 Ch.19—The Nineteenth General Conference—1885 Ch.21—The Twentieth General Conference—1889 Ch.23—The Twenty-First General Conference—1893
PART II DEPARTMENTS OF CHURCH WORK Ch.1—The United Brethren Publishing House Ch.2—The Home, Frontier, and Foreign Missionary Society and Its Work Ch.3—The Church-Erection Society Ch.4—The Woman's Missionary Association Ch.9—The Young People's Christian Union Ch.10—The Board of Trustees of the Church
PART III THE ANNUAL CONFERENCES Ch.1—A Group of Early Conferences Ch.2—Other Conferences Organized from 1835 to 1853 Ch.3—Conferences Organized Since 1853
PART IV HISTORICAL AND STATISTICAL TABLES Appendices Index
NOTICE OF ATTRIBUTION Work originally published in 1897. Scanned, proofed and minor spelling corrections by the United Brethren Historical Center. Electronic edition ©2006 United Brethren Historical Center Suggested Citation:
|
History of the Church of the United Brethren in Christ | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
p.187 CHAPTER XI FRIENDLY CORRESPONDENCE I. WITH THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH
We have already seen that between Bishop Otterbein, the founder of the United Brethren Church, and Bishop Asbury, the first great leader of the American Methodist movement, there existed permanently the strongest bonds of fraternal and Christian fellowship. This feeling of brotherly regard was widespread among their followers as well. In those earlier years the preachers of the United Brethren Church preached almost exclusively in the German language, while the Methodist preachers used, with the rarest exceptions, only the English. There was therefore but slight occasion for clashing, or for the springing up of jealousies, although they occupied the same field. The preaching places of the two churches were open for the freest use by the ministers of each, and revival meetings were frequently held by United Brethren and Methodist ministers together. Of the converts, those speaking only the German language were usually gathered into the United Brethren fold, while those who spoke the English only almost uniformly united with the Methodist Church. Visits were frequently made by the ministers of one church to the annual conference sessions of the other, and there was a general feeling that the work they were doing was one work for a common Master. This generous feeling and practice, which had become an unwritten law between the two churches, led to a p.188 friendly official correspondence, commencing in 1809, and extending through several years. The correspondence was conducted in part by letters, and in part by regularly appointed delegates, the object being to cement still more closely in the bonds of Christian fellowship the two denominations. The leading men of the Methodist Church, with Bishop Asbury, were strongly committed to this fraternal attitude, as were also those of the United Brethren Church. Among the latter none were more deeply enlisted in the cause of this Christian union than Bishop Newcomer, both before and after his election to the office of superintendent, and no other was perhaps quite so deeply disappointed as he when, after the death of Bishop Asbury, in 1816, some in high official position among the Methodist brethren began to withdraw from the friendly compact which had been entered into. As Mr. Spayth was at this time a member of the United Brethren conference, it will be quite in place to repeat here his own record of this section of early history. He says: "In the year 1809 commenced a friendly correspondence between the Methodist Episcopal Church and our Church. For this purpose Brother Christian Newcomer attended the annual conference for the Baltimore District, which was held in Harrisonburg, Virginia. That conference appointed a committee of five elders to confer with Brother Newcomer on a plan of union. That committee made a favorable report, and the conference resolved to send a friendly letter by Brother Newcomer, to be delivered to Father Otterbein ; also resolved to send a messenger to lay their report before our next annual conference, which was done. Upon the reception of this report, a letter of amity and reciprocal friendship was sent from the Brethren conference, through their messenger, to the annual p.189 conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church which met in Baltimore in 1810. This conference resolved to continue the friendly correspondence and settle on a plan of harmonizing in some respects with the United Brethren in Christ. "This treaty, if we may so call it, of amity and friendship rested on the conviction founded in Scripture and Christian experience that a Christian people who had all the essential and important elements of our holy religion, in doctrine, in faith, experience, and practice, in connection with a living and itinerant ministry among them, and who occupied the relations of co-workers, . . . should have some bond of union, some fraternal relations, more than had hitherto been exhibited and cherished by the great family of Protestant churches, and in the observance of which they might find a cause to vie with each other in those delightful acts of brotherly kindness, and in the interchanges in public worship, as well as in the social and more endearing enjoyments of prayer-, class-, and love-feast-meetings. ''February 24, 1812, Brother Newcomer met Bishop Asbury in Leesburg, Virginia. There the Bishop invited Brother Newcomer to attend the Philadelphia Conference in April, in order to assist in effecting a link of union and brotherly fellowship within the bounds of that conference. Brother Newcomer attended accordingly; and the conference appointed Thomas Ware, Bouring, and Fox to confer with him. The conference also resolved that they would act and go as far in this matter as the Baltimore Conference had done, and to signify the same they addressed a letter to the conference of the United Brethren, with a second resolve to send two messengers to consult more fully on this subject with our annual conference. "The points in this agreement were but few, leaving p.190 each church entire and distinct, as they had been previous to this arrangement. The first was, that the meetinghouses on each side should be open, when not occupied by themselves; secondly, that the members in and from each church should be admitted into the class-meetings, prayer-meetings, and love-feast meetings at all times when they should present themselves for admission."1 In earlier pages of his history Mr. Spayth refers to the advent of Mr. Asbury, then still an unordained lay preacher, and his brethren, the Methodist preachers, to the regions occupied by the United Brethren, and to the strong fraternal feeling which sprang up between the ministers and people of the two churches. His record of this gives an interesting picture of the conditions which prevailed. A part of his account is thus condensed : About the time of the War of the Revolution there were numerous societies of Brethren in the German settlements of Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia. In most, if not in all, those places, the Brethren preachers preceded by some years the advent of the Methodist preachers. When the latter pushed their way into the German towns and neighborhoods, the Brethren received them gladly into their houses, affording them every opportunity to preach the gospel in the English language; for, while many of them could not understand the tongue they spoke, they could understand the language of the heart, and they perceived that they preached a living gospel, a heart-felt religion, the same as their own, and that God was with them. And when souls were converted under their ministry they rejoiced greatly, and called them their brethren in the Lord. And these English ministers, called Methodists, found in the United Brethren the same spirit of grace, and of truth and love. Hence they were p.191 together in mutual friendship and confidence, a friendship which, through their united labors, resulted in much spiritual advantage, in many seasons of gracious refreshing through the outpouring of the Spirit of God upon the hearts of the people, and the conversion of many souls. Wesley's rules, as far as they came in conflict with or would for a moment have interrupted or marred this perfect joy, were either suspended or held subject to the higher law of Christ.2 These fraternal relations continued for a series of years, until after the death of Bishop Asbury, as already observed, every door to every form of service inviting the admission of English and German, Methodist and United Brethren, alike. Mr. Spayth was for some years a participant in the experiences of this brotherly fellowship, and as he wrote many years afterward, when well advanced in age, his heart still dwelt fondly upon the gracious scenes. With tender pathos we hear him saying : "I confess it is hard for me to get away from this sunny spot. The love, I trust, still burns within my breast. I can look back and yet see the smiles and cordial shakes of the hand,—hands now cold in death, while mine writes and trembles,—the hearty and joyous welcome when Methodists and United Brethren met. Their songs, their voices, their shouts of Hallelujah, Hallelujah, continue to ring—ring and vibrate in my nervous system while I write, and thrill my soul afresh. Whenever the mind dwells on the loveliness of those past scenes, an angel seems to whisper, It was then that
"We are constrained to say:
In the years 1809 to 1814 a series of official letters, now possessing a peculiar historic interest, passed between the Methodist and United Brethren conferences. The correspondence is well worth preserving, and may be found in Spayth's and Lawrence's histories. It was a cause for profound regret to the United Brethren, and equally so to many Methodists, that the fraternal compact thus formed was destined so soon to be broken after the death of the great-souled Asbury. An influential presiding elder in the Methodist Church, Mr. Spayth relates, more zealous for the observance of Mr. Wesley's rule than for the cultivation of mutual Christian love between different denominations, declared that he would no longer recognize the terms of the union. The preachers under his control submitted to his ruling, and the doors of the Methodist class-meeting were closed against United Brethren. Happily, these conditions have long since passed. Mr. Wesley's arbitrary rule, doubtless a wise and good measure when his early followers in England were subject to disturbance by mobs of outlaws, long ago became a dead letter in the Methodist Discipline and has disappeared from its pages. II. WITH THE EVANGELICAL ASSOCIATION. With the opening years of the present century the church known as the Evangelical Association, at first as the Albrights, or Albright's People (die Albrecht's Leute), came into being. Mr. Albright, the founder, born and p.193 baptized in the Evangelical Lutheran Church, connected himself, upon his conversion, with the Methodist Church. He had little knowledge of the English language, and his early ministry was directed wholly to the German-speaking people of eastern Pennsylvania. If Bishop Asbury had been disposed to favor a German ministry within the Methodist Episcopal Church, it is probable that this separate body of German Methodists would not have been formed. The original conference, in adopting a name, at its session of 1807, called itself "The Newly-Formed Methodist Conference."4 This was later, when it was entirely clear that the organization must be an independent one, exchanged for the name "The Evangelical Association." The type of this new body of Christians, their doctrinal teachings and polity, their insistence upon conversion and a godly life, the spiritual fervor which characterized their preaching, their prayer- and class-meetings, and withal their itinerant method of bringing the gospel to the people, naturally attracted the favorable attention of the United Brethren. The further fact of coincidence in language, their preaching being then wholly in the German, seemed to make not only fraternal cooperation, but actual organic union, with them desirable. It was with this thought in mind that Bishop Newcomer, in April, 1813, made a visit to their conference, where the subject of union was freely discussed. As a result, they prepared p.194 a written communication on the subject of union, which they handed to Bishop Newcomer, to be presented by him to the United Brethren conference, which was to meet soon after in Lancaster County. The United Brethren received the communication favorably, and appointed a committee of four brethren to meet a like committee of four, the Albright conference to arrange, if possible, a basis of union. The men appointed on the part of the United Brethren were Bishop Newcomer, Christian Crum, Joseph Hoffman, and Jacob Baulus. On the part of the Albrights they were George Miller, John Walter, John Dresbach, and Henry Neible. They met in council on November 11, 1813, and remained together for several days, but the object of the meeting failed.5 Further friendly interchanges followed in the next few years, and a final council was held at the house of Henry Kumler, afterward the elder Bishop Kumler, commencing on February 14, 1817. Bishop Newcomer has this brief entry in his Journal: "February 14—Twelve preachers, six of the United Brethren in Christ, and six of the Albright brethren, met this day at Henry Kumler's, to make another attempt to unite the two societies, but we could not succeed in coming to an agreement."6 Dr. Yeakel, in his "History of the Evangelical Association," gives the names of the United Brethren members of this commission as "Bishop C. Newcomer, Joseph Hoffman, Jacob Baulus, Abraham Mayer, Christian Berger, and Conrad Roth."7. The names of the Albright commissioners are not given. Bishop Albright's name does not appear in connection with this movement, his death having occurred in 1808. The cause of this second failure is attributed by Dr. Yeakel to two considerations: First, the commissioners p.195 from the United Brethren side were not empowered with full authority to make a final arrangement. Whatever agreement they might enter into must, according to their instructions, be referred to their General Conference for approval. Second, in the judgment of the Evangelical commissioners the United Brethren were not yet sufficiently crystallized into denominational life. The two points alleged to sustain this view were, that they had as yet no printed Discipline, and that their itinerant system was not yet organized, and was therefore without strength. On these points it may be remarked, first, that the genius of the United Brethren Church has from its early days, or since the organization of its General Conference, required the approval by that body of any important movement affecting the body of the Church generally. The General Conference would not now empower half a dozen men to enter into any compact that should affect the autonomy of the Church. In regard to the second point, it may be said that the Discipline of the Church adopted by the General Conference of 1815 was printed in 1816, the year previous to the meeting of the joint committee in February, 1817.8 On the last point, that pertaining to the itinerancy, it is to be said that the United Brethren itinerancy was at that time not yet fully organized, as has been before remarked in this volume. Mr. Albright, having united with the Methodist Church, and for a time expecting to remain permanently so identified, adopted all the polity of that church, a part of which is its thoroughly organized itinerant system. The early United Brethren came mostly from churches whose polity was essentially congregational and non-itinerant, and its itinerant service for a time was chiefly that of evangelistic visitation, the true itinerant feeling and system being not yet developed. p.196 The local ministry remains with us to this day, entitled to equal rights and privileges in the annual conference with the itinerant ministry, and carefully protected by constitutional provision,9 a kind of historic heirloom of the time when the entire ministry of the Church was essentially local. Bishops Otterbein and Boehm never were itinerants except in the sense of evangelists. Bishop Newcomer became an itinerant in the extremest sense, if almost incessant travel constitutes one an itinerant.
1Spayth's History, pp. 113-115. 2Spayth's History, pp. 79-81 3Spayth's History, pp. 81, 82 4Dr. R. Yeakel, in his History of the Evangelical Association, pp. 84, 85, says : "This conference gave the church it represented no distinct name. . . . But the conference adopted a conference name by calling itself 'The Newly-Formed Methodist Conference.' Albright had been a Methodist, and was such still in his heart, faith, and practice. If he had been allowed to fulfill his mission to the Germans within the Methodist Church, he would have remained in that church, and the Evangelical Association would probably never have come into an existence. Yet he was Methodistically minded all his lifetime, and so were all his co-laborers, and hence came this designation of the conference quite naturally." 5Spayth's History, pp. 142, 143 6Newcomer's Journal, p. 247. 7Dr. R. Yeakel's History of the Evangelical Association, Vol. II., p. 142. 8See p. 166. 9See p. 366; also, Discipline, Chap. III., Constitution, Art. II., Sec. 3. |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| NEXT | |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
