History of the Church of the United Brethren in Christ by Daniel Berger, Part 1, Chapter 17

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 XVII

THE GENERAL CONFERENCES OF 1853-1861

I. THE HOME, FRONTIER, AND FOREIGN MISSIONARY SOCIETY.

^p.303 The period extending from 1853 to 1861 was ushered in by two important events. The first of these was the organization of the Home, Frontier, and Foreign Missionary Society. So far-reaching have been the results of this step that it may be regarded as marking an epoch in the progressive development of the Church. The previous board, organized at an earlier session of the General Conference, had never adopted any aggressive measures in extending the missionary work, and the planting of the Church in new fields was chiefly left to the local societies in the annual conferences, or to such providential methods as might arise in connection with the removal of United Brethren ministers or families to newer portions of the country.

The foremost among the annual conferences in perfecting its plans was the Sandusky, and foremost among the members of that conference in gaining a broad perception of the needs of the work and of the methods to be employed was the Rev. J. C. Bright. Mr. Bright was a member of the General Conference which met at Miltonville, in Butler County, Ohio, on May 9, 1853. He conceived the idea of bringing into more thorough organization the missionary work of the Church, by forming a strong central board, with officers actively employed in its service, and committing to this board the prosecution ^p.304 and general oversight of the work. His plan embraced the home and frontier fields, and the foreign also, as soon as a foreign mission should be projected. He proposed that all existing local or conference missionary organizations should become tributary to the central board, and that in every conference where such organizations did not already exist auxiliary or branch societies should be formed. Thus the plan was intended to bring, as far as possible, the entire Church into active cooperation with the general missionary society. Mr. Bright laid before the conference a constitution which provided for the organization and government of the proposed society, which, upon full consideration, with such amendments as met with favor, was adopted. The constitution thus adopted has remained substantially the same to the present time and the society organized under it has proved one of the most efficient of the various departments of the work of the Church. For a larger view of the society and the work it has accomplished, the reader is referred to another part of this volume. For a copy of the constitution see Book of Discipline.

II. THE REMOVAL OF THE PUBLISHING HOUSE.

Another measure which contributed to making the General Conference of 1853 a memorable one related to the Publishing House of the Church. The reader will remember that at its organization it was located in the thrifty, but small, town of Circleville, Ohio. It was here situated in the midst of its friends—strong men, who cared for it nobly in the days of its infancy. In 1849 an effort had been made to remove it to Cincinnati, but was unsuccessful. But the time had come when more advantageous business facilities were needed for the better enlargement of its work, and the conference, after mature deliberation, ^p.305 decided upon its removal to the city of Dayton. This order, and the removal which followed immediately after, occasioned for a time great disappointment to the friends of the House at Circleville, but the wisdom of the conference in ordering this change of location has been abundantly demonstrated.

III. LAY REPRESENTATION.

Among other subjects which awakened earnest discussion during the successive conference sessions, was that of admitting the laity to a part with the ministry in the counsels of the annual conferences. Their admission to seats in the General Conference was at that time less thought about, since there was a constitutional bar which precluded such a privilege. "All ecclesiastical power herein granted, to make or repeal any rule of discipline, is vested in a General Conference, which shall consist of elders, elected by the members in every conference district throughout the society." So said the Constitution of 1841, and the provision could not be changed except by the vote of the entire Church. But there was no obstacle to the admission of laymen to seats in the annual conferences, except the will of the General Conference. It is not to be forgotten, however, that while there were some, both in the ministry and in the laity, who foresaw the important advantages to be gained by the introduction of lay representation as a feature of our church polity, there was not at that time any wide-spread desire among the laymen for such representation. While some laymen asked for it, and sought in every proper way to awaken interest in the subject, the great body of the Church was indifferent in regard to it. A single memorial only came to the General Conference of 1853, and but few to the sessions of 1857 and 1861. These memorials were properly referred, ^p.306 and the subject was afterward courteously dealt with on the conference floor. Earnest advocates stood up for the principle, but the votes showed that the ministers composing the successive conferences were overwhelmingly opposed. The belief prevailed, and found expression, that all ecclesiastical power and administration were properly committed to the ministry. Few of those who then opposed could foresee how within their own time sentiment would so far undergo change that lay delegates would sit in our annual and General conferences.

IV. TOTAL DEPRAVITY.

The subject of total depravity, of which so little is now heard, was about this time a live question in the Church. Much was written upon it for the columns of the Religious Telescope, and in the General Conference its discussion excited the deepest interest. It was considered important that the applicants for license to preach should declare clearly their belief in the doctrine, and the subject was given a place among the questions which applicants were required to answer. A committee to whom the subject was referred reported the following as the form of question:

Do you believe in the doctrine of natural, hereditary, and total depravity, as held by the Church?

This was in the conference of 1853. A long and animated discussion followed, with no prospect, for a long time, of coming to an agreement. The solution was finally reached by an explanatory amendment, offered by Bishop Glossbrenner, as follows:

1. By "depravity" is meant, not guilt, or liability to punishment, but the absence of holiness; which therefore unfits man for heaven.

2. By "natural" is meant that man is born with this absence of holiness.

^p.307 3. By "hereditary" is meant that this unholy state is inherited from Adam.

4. By "total" is not meant that a man or child cannot become more unholy, or that he is irrecoverably unholy, nor that he is a mass of corruption, but that this absence of holiness must be predicated of all the faculties and powers of the soul.

This definition of the theological bearings of the subject proved generally satisfactory, and the amendment was adopted. The word "complete" was then substituted for the word "total," and the report as proposed was adopted. This, however, was not the end of the controversy, and the subject was destined to come up again. Discussion continued in the columns of the Religious Telescope, and when the General Conference of 1857 assembled in Cincinnati it was expected that the interest of the session would largely be concentrated upon this question. An editorial appeared in the Religious Telescope referring to the manner in which it was disposed of:

"On Friday [the day before the report was presented] it was well known that the committee on revision would reach the much-agitated and very perplexing depravity question. There were some indications that a tedious, severe, and long-protracted, if not acrimonious and unbrotherly, struggle would ensue. Contrary, however, to general expectation, the committee, which consists of one member from each annual conference, came to a perfect agreement, and had prepared a report which was this morning presented to the conference."

The report of the committee provided that the question to applicants for license to preach, with the appended explanatory note, as adopted four years previously, be expunged from the Discipline, and that the following be inserted in its stead:

Do you believe that man, abstract of the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, is fallen from original righteousness, and is not only entirely ^p.308 destitute of holiness, but is inclined to evil, and only evil, and that continually; and that except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God?

This report was adopted by the conference with but a single dissenting vote. So surprised and delighted were the members at this unexpected and happy result that it was proposed to sing the doxology, "Praise God, from whom all blessings flow." All joined in the singing with unusual fervor. The form of question as thus adopted, with only a change of one or two words, has since remained unchallenged in the Discipline.

V. SECRET SOCIETIES.

This subject, after the legislation of the General Conference of 1849, began to be a source of unrest in the Church, and of debate in the General Conferences, leading often, as time advanced, to much bitterness and acrimonious utterance, until by the action of the Church, in the quadrennium between 1885 and 1889, it was practically set at rest. The feeling which revolted against the law of 1849 was at first limited to a small number of the members of the conferences. But the belief in the unwisdom of the extreme legislation continued to assert itself. In the conference of 1857 a paper was offered by J. B. Resler as a substitute for the rule of 1849. That the reader may see how very little was asked in the direction of modification, the proposition is here reproduced:

There shall be no connection with secret oathbound combinations. Any member found connected with such combination shall be affectionately admonished twice or thrice by the preacher in charge, and if such member does not desist in a reasonable time he shall be notified to appear before the tribunal to which he is amenable, and if he still refuse to desist he shall be expelled.

The motion to adopt was debated at some length, Mr. Bachtel, of Virginia, supporting Mr. Resler in the ^p.309 discussion, Mr. Markwood, J. Erb, and others opposing. The proposition was rejected by a vote of forty-six nays to five yeas.

The conference of 1861, at Westerville, Ohio, amended the rule by prescribing the manner of proceeding against persons offending. It added the words, "shall be dealt with as in case of other immoralities." The amendment was sustained by sixty-eight yeas, and opposed by five nays, one of the members voting nay subsequently changing his vote to yea. The use of the word "other" in connection with "immoralities" definitely classed connection with secret organizations as an immorality, and so proved unsatisfactory to many in the laity, the language being thought indefensible and needlessly offensive.

VI. THE SLAVERY QUESTION.

We have seen that the General Conference as early as 1821 embodied the voice of the Church in a distinct utterance against the institution of slavery. The rule adopted and placed in the Book of Discipline was strongly and clearly drawn, and could not be misunderstood. In time, however, there were found persons in membership in the Church who held slaves under peculiar circumstances, such as made it difficult, if not quite impossible, to manumit them, on account of the form of wills under which they were inherited, or the extreme old age of the slaves, whom it seemed cruel to set adrift. Some of the ministers, especially in Virginia and Maryland, found themselves embarrassed by these conditions, and a request was sent to the General Conference of 1857 for an explanation of the rule relating to slavery. The subject was carefully and considerately dealt with, but the conference stood firmly by the rule, and declared that the ministers must gently but firmly maintain the position ^p.310 of the Church, and instructed the bishops visiting the Virginia Conference to make due inquiry if the law were enforced. This attitude of the conference, while working apparent temporary hardship, maintained the position of the Church and assisted in preserving its unity when some of our sister denominations were rent in twain.

VII. ELECTIONS OP BISHOPS.

The bishops chosen by the General Conference of 1853 were J. J. Glossbrenner and David Edwards, reelected, and Lewis Davis. These were again elected in 1857, and John Russel was added to the number. In 1861 Bishops Glossbrenner and Edwards were reelected, with Jacob Markwood and Daniel Shuck as associates, the last named being chosen especially for the work on the Pacific Coast. It was also decided to elect a bishop for the special superintendence of the German work, and Henry Kumler, Jun., was chosen.

The following resolution relating to Bible study in the institutions of learning was adopted in 1857:

Resolved, That it is the advice of this General Conference to all who have control of the educational interests of the Church, to embrace in their regular course of study the Holy Scriptures as one of the books in which there shall be regular recitations.

VIII. PERSONAL NOTES.

1. Lewis Davis, D.D.

One of the strongest figures in the councils, as also in the work, of the Church, during a period of half a century, was Rev. Lewis Davis, D.D. He was born near Newcastle, then in Botetourt County, Virginia, on February 14, 1814. His ancestry on his father's side was Welsh, while his mother was of Scotch descent. Thus he derived legitimately that resoluteness of character which so strongly ^p.311 marked his life. His father was poor in worldly goods, and at eighteen the son left home to learn a trade. He chose that of a blacksmith, but his employer was chiefly engaged in tool-making, and so he learned that art. This man early saw in him the prophecy of a broader life than that of an artisan, and encouraged him to read, and also to attend the academy at Newcastle. In this school he spent about a year and a half, thus laying the foundations upon which he afterward erected the edifice of a solid education.

Mr. Davis's religious impressions began also during this time to take distinct form. He afterward spent some time in West Virginia as a teacher, and subsequently came across into Ohio. His conversion occurred under the ministry of Rev. William Davis, M.D., and after this his friends began to intimate to him that the Lord intended him for the ministry. He received his first license to preach when he was twenty-four years old. In the spring of the next year, 1839, he joined the Scioto Conference, and for eight years performed faithfully the work of an itinerant preacher, part of the time as presiding elder. He felt deeply the disadvantages of his limited education, but resolved to make the most of every possible opportunity for self-improvement. He carried his books with him, and when entering a house, after exchanging cheerful greetings, and spending a little time in conversation, he was accustomed to withdraw to some other part of the room and begin his studies. This did not always meet the approbation of the friends who entertained him, and various instances are related of the manner in which he was obliged to defend himself in order to be allowed to pursue his studies. On one occasion a kind-hearted but talkative brother said to him: "Brother Davis, I don't want that work done. While you are here, I want you to talk all the time. You are our preacher, and I pay you for ^p.312 talking." "Brother," he replied, "I can't talk all the time, and if you won't allow me to study some while in your house I must go elsewhere, where I can study."¹ His perseverance in study soon gained for him the highest respect, and he was allowed to have his own way. His diligent attendance to study, thus sustained through a series of years, so broadened and strengthened his mind that by and by, though not having graduated from any college, he was deemed, and at that time justly, too, the most fit man in the denomination to assume the presidency of its first college, to which position he was elected three years after its founding. And this same earnest study, with the fruits following, seldom intermitted during his lifetime, led to his selection as the head of the theological seminary when it was founded twenty-one years later.

Mr. Davis, though not a member of the General Conference of 1845, united his influence with that of others in securing action by that body recommending the founding of an institution of learning for the Church. When the Scioto Conference began to move in this direction, and the Blendon Young Men's Seminary, at Westerville, Ohio, was purchased, he was among the foremost in urging forward the enterprise. He was appointed one of the trustees, and became soliciting agent for the project, himself making the first subscription ever made in the United Brethren Church for an educational institution. He found this hard work, encountering in some instances strong opposition from official sources. At the session of the Sandusky Conference, whose cooperation he sought, Bishop Russel, who was presiding, and who was for many years intensely averse to education undertaken by the Church, resolved that Mr. Davis should not be heard in the open conference, and repeatedly ruled him out of order when he sought ^p.313 to speak. When the vote was taken, the majority favored cooperation. At the Muskingum Conference, soon after, the same experience was repeated, the bishop peremptorily commanding him to "be still." Here the bishop carried the conference with him. The next year the action was reversed, and the conference came into line.

In 1850 Mr. Davis was elected president of Otterbein University. In 1853, though not a member of the General Conference, he was elected bishop. He performed the duties of this office, retaining the presidency of the college. In 1857 he was reelected bishop. He then resigned the office of president, but two years later, on the resignation of President Alexander Owen, he was again called to be the head of the college. He then continued to fill this position with great distinction until he was called, in 1871, to the chair of theology and the relation of senior professor in Union Biblical Seminary, at Dayton. This position he held until 1885, when advancing years began to tell seriously upon him, and he was released from active duties. He was then made professor emeritus, in which relation he remained to the end of his life.

He was first elected to the General Conference in 1869, though he was twice before a member by virtue of being a bishop. After 1869 he was reelected to each conference until 1885. As a member of the General Conference, while watchful over the various interests of the Church, there was one subject to which he gave supreme attention—the attitude of the Church toward secret organizations. On this he was intensely radical, giving it his most studious and unremitting thought. Other issues in the proceedings of the conferences were often watched by him and supported or opposed according to their supposed or possible bearing, near or remote, on this one central issue. To ^p.314 such an extent did he yield himself to this that it became with him through many years a kind of morbid infatuation, and one could not but feel a regret that his great abilities for varied service should have been so far concentrated upon this one thing, as if there were no other evils for the Church to combat, no other great ends to achieve. His great abilities on the conference floor were always recognized. As a debater he was usually logical, always forcible; in speech and manner, ever dignified, never condescending. With his great strength he easily carried a large following of weaker men with him.

As a preacher Dr. Davis was entitled to eminent rank. He thought clearly and thoroughly, acquired a complete grasp of his subject, and spoke with deliberate self-possession, often with much warmth, frequently mellowing into great tenderness and beauty. He may be said to have been often eloquent, but his eloquence did not depend on the multiplication of words, or elaborated phrases, but was rather the result of a clear apprehension of truth, uttered in chaste and simple diction. In social life he was genial and kind, full of pleasant sunshine, but preserving always a dignity which is seldom attained, and never counterfeited. His home was the center of a large and generous hospitality.

As a writer Dr. Davis wielded an able pen. In his earlier years the columns of the Religious Telescope were frequently enriched by his contributions, usually on educational subjects. In his later years he wrote the "Life of Bishop David Edwards," a volume possessing permanent merit. On the slavery question, though born and brought up in Virginia, he was, like Bishop Markwood and others of our ministers in that State, one of the staunchest of abolitionists.
To many of his truest friends it was a source of ^p.315 profound sorrow that his extreme attitude on the antisecrecy legislation carried him at last away from the moorings to which he had so long been anchored. The great body of the Church, wearied with the fanaticism and the incessant clamor of ultra-radicalism, began in time to yield to a strong reaction. This tendency, from being represented in the General Conferences preceding that of 1869 by a vote of less than five, gradually gained strength until in 1885 it was represented by more than a two-thirds majority, and radicalism began to look toward secession. Dr. Davis was not present in the General Conference of 1889, when secession became a fact, but his sympathies had been with the leaders, and he gave them subsequent support. He was now old, and the time of the end was drawing near. Meanwhile, he never asked for a letter of dismissal from the Summit Street Church, where he held his local membership, and where he and Mrs. Davis each were recognized with highest honor until they were called by the Master. In conversation with his pastor, Dr. G. M. Mathews, he sometimes playfully alluded to the fact that his name remained with the Summit Street congregation, but never asked for a change. He found it no easy task to separate himself from the Church to which he had given so many years of service, and which had so long honored him with its confidence and regard. After his death the quarterly conference of the charge passed resolutions, embodying the fact of his connection with the congregation and their body, and expressing sentiments appropriate to the occasion.

When the end came, on March 23, 1890, it found him serene in spirit, and fully prepared for the mysterious transition. The departure was a great spiritual triumph, and the recollection of the words spoken and the scenes witnessed will not easily fade from the memories of those who ^p.316 visited the chamber from which his spirit took its flight. His remains, after appropriate services in the Summit Street Church, were laid to rest in the beautiful Woodland Cemetery at Dayton, not far from the spot where the body of Bishop Edwards sleeps. Five years later the body of Mrs. Davis, whose attachment and devotion to the Church never faltered, was laid beside that of her husband.

Dr. Davis will long be remembered for his great service in the educational work of the Church, a field in which he was its first and most distinguished pioneer, and to which he gave a greater number of years than have been given by any other in the same calling. His age at the time of his death was seventy-six years, one month, and nine days. Nineteen years he served as president of Otterbein University, fourteen years as senior professor in Union Biblical Seminary, and fifty-one years in the Christian ministry.

2. Jacob Markwood.

One of the most remarkable men whom the Church has yet produced was Bishop Jacob Markwood, of the Virginia Conference. He was born amid the romantic scenery of what is now West Virginia, near Charleston, in Jefferson County, on December 26, 1815. His father, John Markwood, was not a professor of religion. His mother was a woman of devout spirit, a member of the Presbyterian Church, and possessed the qualities of a finely cultured Christian lady. From her Jacob, one of the latest born of a large family, derived chiefly those qualities which so strongly marked his character. He was the subject of deep religious conviction in his tenth year, and became, as he grew older, a diligent reader of the Bible. He dated his conversion to his seventeenth year, but did not form a connection with any church until ^p.317 he was in his twenty-first year, when he joined the United Brethren Church. His father possessed no property, was by trade a mason, and made several removals during his life. Blindness seems to have been a misfortune of the family, both the parents and some of the children losing their vision as life advanced. The father became blind some six years before his death, and the mother fourteen years. Bishop Markwood inherited the tendency, and was nearly blind for about a year before his death. Had he lived to old age, it is probable that he would have walked many years in darkness.

As were others of the family, Jacob was early left to make his own living. At thirteen he found employment in a woolen and carding mill, remaining for three years. At sixteen he was employed by two older brothers, in the same business, on Green Spring River, in Frederick County, Virginia. Here he learned all the arts, as then understood, connected with the woolen factory, and became an expert weaver. Here he was accustomed to keep the Bible on the loom before him, so that he could glance at it in favorable moments, and gather portions of its wealth into his mind.

In the year 1837 he received a license to exhort, and within the same year also a license to preach, his credentials being signed by William R. Rhinehart, then a presiding elder in the Virginia Conference. The following year, in 1838, he became a member of the conference, and at once entered into the itinerant work, and upon that brilliant career which marked him as one of the foremost preachers of his time. After five years of service as a circuit and stationed preacher, he was elected presiding elder, serving in this office with the greatest acceptability. In this relation most of his time was passed, greatly to the edification of the Church in Virginia, with but little ^p.318 interruption, until the General Conference, in 1861, called him to become a shepherd over a wider field. He served as a bishop for eight years, acquiring the greatest popularity with ministers and people, and would doubtless have been continued in the office had not severe and settled affliction disabled him for further service in a field whose labors so severely test the strongest constitutions.

Bishop Markwood was of rather slight figure, not over five feet and seven or eight inches in height, and of erect and elegant carriage. He was quite dark in complexion, with strongly outlined face and head. His black hair fell in heavy masses about his head. His disposition is perhaps difficult to describe. He was genial, polite, courteous in the best sense, full of the gentlest kindness, generous without limit. But this generous nature was capable of being profoundly stirred in rebuking iniquity. When dealing with the slavery question, with the liquor traffic, or other evils that laid claim to respectability, he was capable of pouring out a very deluge of fire. The stately Wendell Phillips, that master of the oratory of invective, was scarcely able to give utterance to such a scathing storm of wrath as Bishop Markwood sometimes did when dealing with these monster evils.

In his preaching the bishop was a master. His diction was copious, his utterance rapid and warm, and his power to reach every passion and impulse of the heart rarely surpassed. He gave careful attention to the preparation of his sermons, but did not build them up artificially according to the usual laws for sermon-making. He sought to fill his mind and heart thoroughly with his subject, and then trusted much to the inspiration of the occasion for the forms of utterance—a method very safe for him, but not to be generally commended for imitation.

Unhappily for this gifted man, he paid slight regard ^p.319 to the laws of health. He traveled with equal willingness by day or night, in the saddle in his earlier years, or on the train in the later, thus depriving himself of the rest which his impulsive nature so greatly needed for proper recuperation. It was not an unusual thing for him to be all night in the saddle in order to reach distant appointments when he served as presiding elder in Virginia, and in his long trips on his Western districts as bishop he was equally reckless of the claims of his physical nature. The nervous exhaustion which gradually brought on the final crisis, was largely due to excesses in preaching and travel.

In the War of the Rebellion he was compelled early to seek a home in the North, his fiery arraignment of the movements leading to secession inviting against him the unfavorable attention of the Confederate authorities. The sum of a thousand dollars was offered for his apprehension, but he had found a safe asylum with friends in the North. The bishop's home was without children, and his wife, whom many remember as a lady of beautiful Christian character and accomplishments, came north with him. She afterward accompanied him frequently in his travels on his districts, being everywhere received as a welcome guest.

His eight years of service as a bishop closed in May, 1869, and after much painful affliction his earthly career closed on January 22, 1873. He died at the home of his father-in-law, at Luray, in Page County, Virginia, aged fifty-seven years and twenty-seven days. Rev. G. W. Statton, D.D., preached an appropriate funeral discourse. His remains sleep in the cemetery at Luray, and those of his wife, whose death occurred December 3, 1886, rest by his side. On a marble shaft marking the place where he is buried are inscribed his last words: "My work is done ; the Lord has no more work for me to do."

^p.320 3. Daniel Shuck.

The men whose names have up to this time come into prominent mention in these pages have all passed on into the heavenly world. Others who are yet living must now be introduced, and these must be spoken of with more reserve, and generally more briefly.

Among those whom the General Conference has honored with its confidence is Ex-Bishop Daniel Shuck, of the Indiana Annual Conference, who was elected to this high office at the session in Westerville, Ohio, in 1861. At that time the work on the Pacific Coast was rising into importance, and the conference decided to form it into a missionary district, with a resident bishop to superintend it. Mr. Shuck was then in the prime of young and vigorous life. He was full of religious zeal and of the missionary fervor which the recent organization of the Home, Frontier, and Foreign Missionary Society had kindled in the hearts of many, and it was a most fit selection when the General Conference laid its hands upon him for that work. He shrank at first from the responsibility involved, but gave his consent to go. Returning to New Albany, Indiana, to complete his year of service there as pastor, he meanwhile made preparation for the journey. When the time came for his departure, the emergencies of the Civil War, which had then begun in earnest, placed an embargo upon his going, and it was not until March, 1864, that he reached Sacramento City. There being then no transcontinental railroad, the journey was made by New York, Aspinwall, and Panama.

His work as a Coast bishop in those days was beset with many difficulties, on account of the long trips over mountainous countries. Especially difficult was the overland journey to Oregon and return. Once, on the return, he was set upon by robbers. A display of revolvers and ^p.321 ugly-looking knives, pockets emptied, the bishop tied to a tree, while Mrs. Shuck was being searched and their trunk pilfered of clothing and money, were some of the incidents of the experience. Their persons were not harmed, and they went on their way rejoicing that life was spared, but they felt that as they had before been "in perils of waters," so now they had also been "in perils of robbers."

The General Conference of 1865 reelected Bishop Shuck, though he was not present at the session, having been on his district only a little over a year, and the distance being so great. The conference of 1869, at Lebanon, Pennsylvania, dissolved the Coast District, deciding that the conferences there should be visited by the bishops of the general work alternately. Bishop Shuck was in attendance at this conference, but some time afterward returned to the Coast, having resolved to spend the remainder of his life among the people there. He continued to serve the Church with great faithfulness in various relations, as presiding elder, circuit and stationed preacher, evangelist, or missionary. Several years ago the severities of hard service began to tell upon his vigorous constitution, and his voice entirely failed him. That trouble is now chiefly removed, and he rejoices in being able sometimes, though now seventy years old, to preach as often as three times on a Sabbath. His wife, who so long endured with him the hardships of pioneer life, is still by his side, and they have just passed the fiftieth anniversary of their marriage.

Ex-Bishop Shuck joined the Indiana Conference at the age of about seventeen, in 1844, and has been in the ministry about fifty-three years. He became interested in the cause of education, assisted in locating Union Biblical Seminary, and has been one of the chief supporters of San Joaquin Valley College.

^p.322 On the subject of legislation relating to secret societies, he stood for the Discipline as from time to time amended. But when the final crisis came, he remained loyal to the Church, deeming the preservation of the Church an object more to be desired than stubborn adhesion to a principle which the great body of its people had ceased to support.

He resides now in Sacramento City, California, and rejoices in any labor that he is able to perform for the Master whom he has so long served, and in the prosperity of the Church to which the toil of his life has been given.


	Jacob Markwood		John Dickson

	William R. Rhinehart		John C. Bright

	Solomon Vonneida		William Mittendorf

	David L. Rike		Jacob Hoke

¹ Thompson's Our Bishops, p. 398.



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