History of the Church of the United Brethren in Christ by Daniel Berger, Part 1, Chapter 18

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 XVIII

THE GENERAL CONFERENCES OF 1865-1881

I. A PERIOD OF PROGRESS.

^p.323 The time from 1865 to 1885 was in a marked degree distinguished as a period of development. Events having a most important bearing on the progress of the Church transpired between these dates. A non-progressive spirit, too, asserted itself, for a time with increasing intensity, tending to restrict the life of the Church within narrower limits, to be met, however, by that strong reaction which made possible the culmination of 1885, and made that one of the truly historic years of the Church. The period was one of steady growth in the membership and the various institutions of the Church. The field of operations was rapidly enlarged in the newer districts of the West. The Home, Frontier, and Foreign Missionary Society proved the value of its service by increasing activities, aiding in the organization and support of a number of new conferences, so that the thirty-two conferences of 1865 had become forty-eight in 1885. The membership of the Church also was nearly doubled within this period, advancing from 89,811 to 173,265.

Several important branches of church work also were organized in such manner as to come definitely under the care of the General Conference. The first of these was the General Sunday-School Board, originally called Sunday-School Association, formed by the conference of 1865. Next followed Union Biblical Seminary, the preliminary ^p.324 steps for its founding being taken by the conference of 1869. After this followed the Woman's Missionary Association, organized independently, but receiving the official recognition of the General Conference. This association was formed in 1875, and it was an incident of very special interest when, at the General Conference of 1877, at Westfield, Illinois, Mrs. D. L. Rike, as a representative of the woman's board, presented in an excellent address the greetings of the association. The conference of 1869 organized a general Board of Education, which should have oversight of all the educational work of the Church. This board has accomplished a valuable service in this important field. This conference also organized the Church-Erection Society, laying the foundations of a department of work which has already proved of much service in its particular field, and will accomplish far greater work in the future. In the publishing department great advance was made. In 1865 the Publishing House, though showing assets amounting to over sixty thousand dollars, was embarrassed with liabilities reaching so near to an equal amount that a sale of the House could not have satisfied the claims against it. In 1885 the net assets above all liabilities were considerably more than two hundred thousand dollars. This material progress, however, is to be regarded only as an index suggesting the higher gains to the Church accomplished through the numerous publications issued from its presses. Each of these special departments of work will be found spoken of farther on in this volume.

II. PRO RATA REPRESENTATION.

Several questions of church polity were much agitated through this period. Among the most important of these were those relating to the ratio of representation in the ^p.325 General Conference, and to lay representation or lay delegation in the General and annual conferences. The earliest basis of representation in the General Conference had no reference to annual-conference districts. By the consent, or request, of the old, or original, conference in the East, the Miami Annual Conference arranged the basis for representation for the first General Conference, held in 1815. The Church was divided into ten districts, each district to be entitled to two delegates. The districts of the presiding elders seem to have furnished, in part, at least, the basis for the division into the ten districts. This arrangement seems to have placed it within the power of any annual conference to secure for itself a larger representation in the General Conference by increasing the number of its presiding-elders' districts. At any rate, in the General Conference of 1833 some of the Western conferences appear to have gained material advantage over those in the East. But this advantage, with their power to outvote their Eastern brethren, they appear to have surrendered gracefully, for in the conference succeeding, that of 1837, representation was upon an even plane, each of the eight conferences then existing having two delegates on the floor. The ratio of representation was one of the subjects considered by this body, and it was evidently the judgment of the majority that the arrangement was unfair to the larger conferences. The proof of this is in the fact that, in framing the Constitution which they approved and placed before the Church, they adopted the principle of pro rata representation. The basis proposed was equitable, and was very clearly expressed in the following, in Section 3 of Article I.:

The number of delegates from each conference district shall not exceed one for every five hundred members. But should it so happen that a conference would be formed in a territory not having five ^p.326 hundred members within its district, that conference shall nevertheless have one delegate to represent its members in General Conference.

The General Conference of 1841 was evidently not of the same mind with that of 1837. In framing the Constitution which was then adopted, and by which the Church was governed until 1889, the conference left out the pro rata feature, but placed a clause in the body of the Discipline providing for a representation of three delegates from each annual conference. It was early felt that an arrangement which gave to five hundred or a less number of members in a mission conference as much power in the law-making body of the Church as was possessed by five thousand or ten thousand in an older conference was gravely unjust, and earnest efforts were from time to time made to secure a more equitable representation. The first movement in this direction was in the General Conference of 1857, upon a motion introduced by the younger Bishop Kumler favoring pro rata representation. The motion was voted down, as were all subsequent efforts during the successive General Conferences until 1881. The General Conference of that year adopted a compromise measure, in which the pro rata principle was partially recognized. The measure gave to the smallest annual conference no less than two, and to the largest no more than four, delegates.

III. LAY REPRESENTATION.

Originally the General and annual conferences of the Church were composed of the ministerial class alone. This composition of the conferences grew naturally out of the type of its early life. At the "great meetings" the ministers held their councils and decided what places were to be visited and who among them were to make the ^p.327 visits or tours determined upon. Later, when these councils became organized conference meetings, they still consisted of the ministers only, and the General Conference, when it was organized, took on the same type. This was in a period when little was thought of except building up the immediate spiritual interests of the people. There was no missionary society, no colleges or seminaries, no publishing house, and not very much building of church-houses. There was but little that required immediate counsel with the laity. Most of the ministers received no salaries, and others so little that even the office of steward was for a number of years unknown. On the material side of building up the Church, in which it would be supposed that the laity were especially interested, there was so little done that the general councils might very well be composed of ministers only. With the springing up of the various departments of church work, these conditions changed, and there began to be a goodly number, both in the ministry and in the laity, who believed that the laity should bear a part in the business of both the General and the annual conferences. As related to the financial side of the question, intelligent laymen frequently made the just complaint that the laity were expected to contribute the money for carrying forward the enterprises of the Church and were denied a voice in determining how the money should be spent.

There was no serious barrier in the Constitution or Rules of Discipline of the Church to forbid laymen becoming members of the annual conferences. All that was needed was for the General Conference to enact the necessary legislation amending the provisions under which annual conferences were formed. In regard to the General Conference the case was different. Here the Constitution of ^p.328 1841,¹ as has been already seen, interposed an obstacle which no General Conference in its own power could overcome.

The provision which vested all ecclesiastical power in the ministry alone must of necessity be changed before the laity could share this prerogative with the clergy; and the provision which was intended to make alteration or amendment difficult by requiring the approval of a two-thirds vote of the entire Church, did this very effectually. Under these conditions the friends of lay delegation had a problem of unusual difficulty to meet. All efforts in the direction of securing lay delegation must contemplate, first, the favor of a majority in the General Conference, composed of ministers only, many of. whom believed that special divine prerogatives to rule as well as to shepherd the Church were committed to the ministry; and, secondly, they must secure the approving vote of the entire Church on an amendment to the Constitution.

The first well-directed effort to secure the necessary legislation for bringing such an amendment before the Church for its approval was made in the General Conference of 1869. A committee on lay representation was appointed as one of the standing committees of the conference. An excellent report, providing for an amendment to the Constitution and for the requisite legislation to take the vote of the people, was presented. It was ably defended before the conference, but voted down by the decisive majority of fifty-five against thirty-two. But it would be unjust to this conference to regard it as nonprogressive on this account, since it was this body which authorized the founding of a theological seminary and created the Church-Erection Society. ^p.329 In the quadrennium following the conference of 1869 a decided advance in the sentiment of the Church on this subject was made. In the conference of 1873, held at Dayton, Ohio, the subject was again introduced. A report similar to that defeated in 1869, but fuller and more explicit in its provisions, was presented and adopted. A question then arising in regard to the construction to be placed upon Article IV. of the Constitution, a resolution was adopted referring the decision to the Board of Bishops. The question related to the meaning of the phrase "unless by request of two-thirds of the whole society." The resolution was as follows:

Resolved, That the explicit rendering of Article IV. of the Constitution he submitted to the Board of Bishops, and that they be instructed to publish the same in the Religious Telescope.

The bishops took the matter under advisement at a regular meeting subsequent to the adjournment of the conference. Being four in number, their vote upon the main question involved was a tie. In consequence, the amendments were not submitted to the people, the will of the General Conference was defeated, and lay representation was again deferred.

These repeated failures, though disappointing, did not dishearten the friends of lay representation. In the conference of 1877 the subject was again introduced, and a paper was adopted empowering the annual conferences, when so desiring, to adopt lay representation in their sessions, each charge in any conference to be entitled to one delegate. The lay delegates so admitted to membership were to have all the privileges of the ministers, except the power to vote on the reception or expulsion of preachers, the passing of licentiates in the course of reading, and the election of presiding elders. Thus an important advance step was gained. But lay representation ^p.330 in the General Conference was to be still further delayed. In the conference of 1881 a report providing for pro rata representation was adopted, but the same report also recommended that the question of lay representation in the General Conference be for the present deferred. This part of the report was also adopted, and lay representation in that body was not secured until, by the action of the General Conference of 1885, and the vote of the entire Church following, the Constitution was amended so as to open the way for its introduction.

IV. THE SECRET-SOCIETY QUESTION.

The secret-society question received a large amount of attention during the period from 1865 to 1885. During a large part of this time it became, indeed, the dominating question of the Church. The columns of the Religious Telescope teemed with articles on this subject; in the successive sessions of the General Conference entire days, sometimes several days, were given to its discussion, often in heated debate; and most, perhaps all, of the annual conferences at each yearly session passed some form of resolutions, either supporting the legislation of the General Conference, or advising more moderate measures. The tendency was steadily toward a more intense radicalism, until the very excesses to which writing, speaking, legislation, and administration were carried began to bring about a strong reaction.

There is no doubt that the fathers of the Church held a sentiment adverse to secret societies, or rather to the Masonic order, the one society best known to them. Bishop Otterbein, like Mr. Wesley, the founder of the Methodist Church, and many other leaders of Christian thought of that day, looked with disfavor upon this order. Bishop Boehm was born and brought up in a church which, like ^p.331 the Society of Friends, discountenanced all oaths, including those administered in the courts, and was therefore all the more opposed to oaths not required by civil law. The followers of these eminent leaders naturally adopted their views, and opposition to secret societies finally found expression in the Book of Discipline, and in 1841 in the Constitution then adopted. The first legislation of the Church on the subject was in 1829, at a time when the sentiment of the country, for special reasons, was widely and very strongly aroused against the Masonic order. The legislation by the General Conference of that year was specifically against Masonry. This was sixteen years after the death of Bishop Otterbein, and while his personal sentiment was adverse to Masonry he never framed it into a rule for the government of the Church.

In the year 1868 a national convention of men opposed to secret societies was held in the city of Pittsburg. Several persons prominently connected with the United Brethren Church were present as members, and participated in its proceedings. Among the steps taken by the convention was that of recommending the publication of a weekly periodical which should be especially devoted to opposition to secret societies. This paper found a considerable circulation among the people of the United Brethren Church, and aided much in kindling the spirit of intense radicalism which subsequently found so strong a development in the Church. On the approach of the General Conference of 1869, it advised the United Brethren to look carefully to its officials connected with the Publishing House. The Religious Telescope at that time was conducted on a plane of moderation, but in firm disapproval of secret societies, and in support of the position held by the Church. But its tone was not sufficiently radical to meet the extreme views ^p.332 of some on the question. In the conference of 1869 and in several succeeding conferences the subject was made an issue in the election of some of the general officers— in some cases successful, in others not. The columns of the Religious Telescope, it was thought, should be especially guarded, and for eight years, from 1869 to 1877, the paper was placed under the most vigilant radical supervision. The very intensity of its radicalism began in time to react upon itself, and many earnest supporters of the church law on secrecy desired a change in the control of the paper, and a new editor, of more moderate views, was chosen, to give a truer expression of the sentiment of the Church.

The rule in the Discipline against connection with secret societies was the bone of contention, the radical portion of the General Conferences seeking from time to time to increase its severity, while the liberals sought to soften or modify its provisions. The yeas and nays on the changes proposed in the successive conferences are the best index of the gradually changing sentiment as it advanced from the position of ultraism to a more liberal attitude. In the conference at "Westerville, Ohio, in 1861, the vote on the final adoption of the rule as then amended stood sixty-eight yeas to five nays, one of these being afterward changed to yea. In the minutes for 1865 the yeas and nays are not recorded. In the conference at Lebanon, Pennsylvania, in 1869, the proportion was seventy-two for adoption to twenty-five against, the ratio being in the first instance about seventeen to one, and in the second not quite three to one. The main vote in the conference of 1873, at Dayton, Ohio, after the Religious Telescope had been for four years under radical control, was eighty-two yeas to twenty-two nays, a gain to the radical side, and a loss to the liberal. In the conference of 1877 the vote ^p.333 stood seventy to thirty-one, a loss to the radical side and a gain to the liberal. In 1881 a test vote stood sixty-eight radical to fifty-seven liberal, and in 1885 liberal sentiment had so far advanced as to make possible the steps taken for the amendment of the Constitution. A greatly modified rule on secret societies, proposed by the liberals, was adopted by a vote of seventy-six to thirty-eight, six not voting, and the measure providing for the appointment of a Commission for the amendment of the Constitution and revision of the Confession of Faith was carried by the decisive majority of seventy-eight in favor to forty-two against. The number of delegates, with the bishops included, was one hundred and twenty, the bishops in each instance voting.

V. PERSONAL NOTES.

1. Jonathan Weaver, D.D.

The General Conference never made a wiser selection for the office of bishop than it did at its session of 1865, when it laid upon Jonathan Weaver this high responsibility. For nearly thirty-two years he has gone in and out before the Church, performing for it service in all its various fields, except in the foreign missionary districts, with a degree of success and acceptability not surpassed in its history.

Bishop Weaver was born in Carroll County, Ohio, on March 23, 1824, and was the youngest of a family of twelve—six sons and six daughters. His educational advantages were limited, being such as were found in the common schools of that day, with the addition of attendance at a Presbyterian academy, or high school, for a short period. It has always been a source of regret to him that he did not have the advantage of a thorough training in ^p.334 the schools. But at that time the Church did not have any denominational schools, and the ministers of his conference mostly were not in favor of college-trained preachers. So he entered the field with such preparation as he had, and sought by reading and study to make up in part what he lacked at the beginning.

His religious convictions go back to an early date. His conversion occurred at a camp-meeting in the summer of 1841, when he was seventeen years of age. At nineteen he was chosen a class-leader, and at twenty was given license to exhort. With this license he was pressed to assist on a circuit for a time. In 1847, at the age of twenty-three, he joined the Muskingum Conference, and so entered upon the distinguished career which awaited him. His first charge, in the region bordering upon Lake Erie, included seventeen appointments. He increased this number to twenty-three within the year, and had about eighty accessions to the Church. He succeeded well as a revivalist, his accessions on each of two other charges numbering a hundred and upward within a year. In 1848 he was ordained by Bishop Glossbrenner. In 1851, after four years' work on circuits, he was chosen presiding elder, and in 1857 he was a delegate to the General Conference at Cincinnati.

During these years he was gradually rising in popularity as a preacher. This fact, added to his urbane and winning manner, led the trustees of Otterbein University to seek his services as a soliciting agent for that institution. His cordial and hearty bearing, with his eloquence in the pulpit, won for him a welcome wherever he went, and he served in this relation for eight years. The General Conference of 1861, at Westerville, Ohio, elected him bishop for the Pacific Coast. He declined this responsibility, preferring to remain in the service of the college.

Jonathan Weaver

^p.335 The year 1865 brought the crisis which fixed his destiny for the rest of his life. The General Conference of that year was held in the chapel of Western College, then located at Western, Iowa. An editor of the Religious Telescope was to be chosen, and his friends rallied strongly to his support for the position. He had written much for its columns, always in a pleasing and attractive style. This, added to his wide popularity as a preacher, and the earnest advocacy of his supporters, seemed to make his election a foregone conclusion; but when the ballots were counted, he was not elected. The General Conference then did a much wiser thing, when, almost immediately after, it elected him to the office of bishop. What he became as a bishop all the Church knows.

As a presiding officer over the General or annual conferences he has been eminently successful. His knowledge of parliamentary law, his grasp upon conference business through all its entanglements, his clear statement of motions or of decisions of questions of order, his perfect poise when the floor was somewhat stormy, and his occasional playfulness withal, have marked him as one of the ablest masters of assemblies.

On some questions of church polity which occasioned agitation, he long ago proved himself to be progressive by giving support, cautious for a time, to the movements which looked toward change. On the attitude of the Church toward secret societies, he became early a semi-liberal, and as he saw in his wide experience the results of extreme legislation he gradually came to favor strongly the adoption of more moderate measures, and finally was ready to stand in the front rank of the movement which gave to the Church its revised Constitution. In the progress of this change his counsels, as in all other things, were moderate. He has never been ready to support sudden or ^p.336 violent measures, but has rather pursued the course which seemed to promise the greater safety.

But it is in his character as a preacher that Bishop Weaver has won in greatest degree the affections of the Church. Here his style is easy, clear, luminous, strong, often gentle and tender, frequently rising to majesty. It is not given to many men to be his equals in the pulpit. The simplicity of his style, while justly challenging the approbation of the learned and wise, wins also the favor of childhood. Of this the following is an interesting illustration: Some years ago, in the city of Dayton, the pulpit of one of the leading Presbyterian churches was vacant for a time, and the bishop was engaged to fill it when his duties permitted. An officer in the church related that one Sunday morning at the breakfast table his little daughter, a child of eight, had asked him who was going to preach that day. On being told that Bishop Weaver would preach, she exclaimed, gleefully: "Oh, then I am going to stay for church. I like to hear him preach. I can understand everything he says." The sermon was somewhat lengthy that day, and when the gentleman had returned home he asked his daughter whether she did not get tired with the bishop's long sermon. She replied, "Oh, no, papa, the sermon was not at all long." The bishop on that day was in one of his best moods, and the length of the sermon was precisely one hour and thirteen minutes. It would be difficult, perhaps, to give higher praise to a sermon than such a tribute by a little child.

Some years ago the bishop's strength began to be broken through long-continued and excessive labors, and the General Conference of 1893 decided to release him from active duties except such as he might feel himself able to perform. He was accordingly elected bishop emeritus, in which relation he now continues. With his strength ^p.337 thus weakened he has been aging perhaps somewhat prematurely, and presents now quite a venerable appearance. His tall form, equaling in height that of Abraham Lincoln, whom in some other respects he has been thought to resemble, begins to be slightly bent, and his heavy white locks and beard betoken rather more years than the calendar measures. But he is serene and happy in spirit, happy especially over the prosperity of the Church for whose welfare he has toiled so long. It is a source of great comfort to him that the Church is now about safely through with the troublesome conflict of the recent years, in which he himself was called to take so large a part for her defense, and that the promise of a bright future now everywhere illumines the horizon.

Bishop Weaver has been a free contributor to the literature of the Church. For forty years he has written frequently for its various periodicals, and a number of books and pamphlets have appeared from his pen. Among these are "Discourses on the Resurrection," "Divine Providence," "Ministerial Salary," "Universal Restoration," and "A Practical Comment on the Confession of Faith." He is also the editor of a theological work entitled "Christian Doctrine," a symposium contributed to by thirty-seven writers selected by himself.

Bishop Weaver's home for a number of years past has been in the city of Dayton, where he enjoys the high regard of the people of all denominations. He still makes long journeys to preside over such annual conferences as are allotted to him in the sessions of the episcopal board, and preaches frequently in Dayton and elsewhere as his strength permits. He abides in strong hope of standing in due time in the presence of the Master whom he has served through so many years.

^p.338 2. John Dickson, D.D.

Through a period of twenty-four years the name of John Dickson, D.D., appeared as one of the bishops of the Church, his service commencing in May, 1869, and closing in 1893. Bishop Dickson was born near Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, on June 15, 1820. His father was of Scotch-Irish, and his mother of English, ancestry. The family home was on a farm, and until he was about seventeen years of age his life was spent in the usual farm employments, with a short term at the common school during the winter season. The advantages afforded by the usual common school of that day were very limited, and he acquired later, in diligent private study, the close and accurate mental training which gave character to his preaching through life. He entered quite early upon the profession of a teacher, and taught the usual winter term, with an added term in the spring.

His conversion occurred in November, 1843, under the ministry of Rev. J. C. Smith, then a young man beginning his work, but afterward rising into prominence as a minister. He was soon after this called upon to open meetings, and not long afterward the license to exhort, more customary in those days than now, was given him, and then a license to preach. His conversion took place in the "Old Red School-house," some eight miles southwest from Chambersburg, a place sometimes called the "soul factory," from the frequency of the revivals which took place there. He took his first charge as a preacher in March, 1846, at a conference in Lancaster County, the presiding officer being Bishop Glossbrenner, then in the first year of his service as bishop. In 1847 he joined the conference, and three years later, in 1850, he was ordained as an elder by Bishop Erb at a session of the conference at York.

During the years following, up to May, 1869, he ^p.339 performed diligently the duties of an itinerant minister, being in charge of circuits or stations, or in the office of presiding elder. Meanwhile, he gave much attention to study and writing, becoming a frequent contributor to the columns of the Religious Telescope. During part of the quadrennium from 1865 to 1869 he was one of several editorial contributors to the paper. So well recognized were the attainments he had made that his name was at one time proposed for president of Mount Pleasant College, before the consolidation of that institution with Otterbein University. He modestly declined this honor, and urged the election of Alexander Owen. His counsel was wisely followed. Previous to the first appointment of John Lawrence as editor of the Religious Telescope, in 1850, his name was considered by the trustees of the Publishing House for that position, but he declined to be a candidate.

The General Conference of 1869, held at Lebanon, Pennsylvania, not far from his own home, chose him for the responsible office of bishop, and reelections followed at each conference until 1893. He performed the duties of this trust with unflagging diligence, giving attention faithfully to every minute detail. As a presiding officer, whether over the General Conference or the annual conferences, he was clear, accurate, and strong, so that the progress of business was always safe in his hands. He had a complete grasp of parliamentary law, and kept full control over the intricacies, especially of General Conference business, and a doubt as to the correctness of his rulings was rarely suggested.

As a preacher Bishop Dickson has always been recognized as clear, methodical, and strong, possessing less of the emotional than some, never attempting rhetorical adornment or flights of eloquence, but always instructive and edifying. During his service as a pastor frequent ^p.340 revivals, some of them of considerable extent, occurred under his ministrations.

On some of the questions which agitated the Church during many years, he was conservative, and for a long time was numbered with the radical party. His early training had taught him to regard the attitude of the Church as wise and right, and he was slow to come to any material change of sentiments. He doubted the wisdom of the appointing of the Church Commission by the General Conference of 1885, and, while he was by virtue of his office as bishop a member of it, he chose not to take part in its deliberations, fearing that the entire movement would result in harm to the Church. He was thoroughly conscientious in this, and frankly stated his position in a letter to the Commission. He was in no sympathy with those who, when they were no longer able to control, began to prepare the way for the disruption of the Church, as all his subsequent course demonstrated. When the final crisis came, he was found with Weaver and Castle and Kephart, and with all who adhered loyally to the Church; and during the years which followed, his pen was frequently employed in clearing up doubts which had been raised in the minds of many in the Church through representations designed to place it in a false position. His activity in this respect proved of great service in holding to the Church many whom it was sought to mislead by alleging that the Church had nullified its own Constitution, cast aside its Confession of Faith, and adopted other instruments in their stead.

In years Bishop Dickson has now advanced well toward the sunset, being in the seventy-seventh year of his age, but he has as yet suffered little abatement of strength. His contributions for the church periodicals are clear and vigorous as ever, and he preaches almost constantly with ^p.341 undiminished acceptability. He resides in his old home in Chambersburg in quiet contentment, the wife of his youth still sitting at his side, and abides firm in the faith of the gospel of Christ, which he has so long proclaimed.

3. Nicholas Castle, D.D.

Twenty years ago this coming May, Bishop Castle was elected to a seat in the episcopal board. He was born in Elkhart County, Indiana, on October 4, 1837, and is now in the sixtieth year of his age. His early life was passed in poverty as to worldly circumstances. His father died when he was about two years old, and his mother, gentle, delicate, toiling to rear her orphan family, long an invalid, was released from suffering when he was but thirteen. He inherited a frail constitution, and was a delicate child, and nobody needed a boy who was not rugged enough to perform substantial labor on the farm. He drifted awhile, until at fifteen he found a home, in which he remained until he attained his majority, and, indeed, until he entered upon the work of the ministry. Three months of attendance at school each year was one of the conditions of his stay with this farmer, and the terms of the contract were carefully kept. But so defective was the system of teaching in those days in the newer parts of the country that the advantages secured were comparatively meager.

His conversion was attended with marked power, so as to leave the question of a true religious experience permanently settled in his mind. His call to the ministry followed soon after, expressing itself to his own mind and to the minds of others in the conviction that God intended him for the sacred office. With the greatest timidity and fear he began, at the urgency of his friends, to speak in public, and when the annual session of the St. Joseph Conference was approaching he arranged to attend it. ^p.342 The opening day of the session, September 23, 1858, found him present as an applicant for license to preach. The conference was held at Warsaw, Indiana, and Bishop L. Davis presided. To his surprise,—for it was more than he had allowed himself to expect,—the conference accepted him, and he was assigned to the Warsaw Circuit, a field with twenty-four appointments, all of which must be met every four weeks. He was ordained by Bishop Markwood on October 14, 1861. For a little over eighteen years, until May, 1877, he served in various relations the St. Joseph Conference, a portion of the time as presiding elder.

The General Conference of May, 1877, held in Westfield, Illinois, brought him new and most unexpected duties in the Church. The death of Bishop David Edwards had left an important vacancy to be filled, and the General Conference had decided to strengthen the episcopal service, so that there were two bishops to be elected. Mr. Castle was one of those who were chosen. The announcement of the choice came upon him with overwhelming power, and his sense of unfitness for the high responsibilities involved led him to so far shrink from accepting the office that he well-nigh determined upon a resignation. If any accusation of seeking for office could ever be laid justly against any one, such could never be said of Bishop Castle. He finally, after much fervent prayer, decided to submit to what seemed to be an expression of the Divine will. "I do not know what it means," he said, "but God shall be his own interpreter." The committee to station the bishops assigned him to the Pacific Coast. This field was an exceedingly difficult one to serve, owing to the long distances that must be traveled, many of the journeys lying across almost pathless mountains, and being beset with a variety of perils. For eight years Bishop Castle served ^p.343 on the Coast District, gaining an experience, though at hard cost, which has proved valuable to him ever since. It was during this period that he was called to part with his first wife, a lady of the noblest type of beautiful Christian womanhood, who had faithfully shared his toils since the second year of his work in the ministry. Since 1885 his residence has been at Elkhart, Indiana, near the place of his birth, and his service has been at large throughout the Church upon the plan of episcopal visitation adopted by the General Conference of that year. As a presiding officer over the General and annual conferences Bishop Castle takes high rank with his brethren of the board of superintendents. As a preacher he impresses his hearers with the depth of his sincerity and the thoroughness of his own experience. His imagination is warm and vivid, so that descriptive passages in his sermons often take on a poetic cast, and his utterance frequently rises into the truest eloquence. His extreme sensitiveness and timidity, which he even now finds it often difficult to hold in abeyance, usually disappear as his sermon advances, and he becomes a master of the best forms of speech. In the pulpit and everywhere else he makes the impression of one devoutly sincere as a Christian, and as holding daily communion with God. His health is often delicate, yet God has enabled him to render a very large amount of service to the Church.

4. Milton Wright, D.D.

Ex-Bishop Milton Wright was born on November 17, 1828, in Rush County, Indiana. He dates his conversion in 1843, and he became a member of the White River Conference in 1853. He spent a busy life in the itinerant work prior to his being called into official service. A part of this time he was employed as a missionary in Oregon. ^p.344 The rest was chiefly given to the White River Conference, in the various relations of circuit preacher, stationed pastor, or presiding elder. He was in all these duties a faithful and conscientious worker, avoiding no hardships that might be in store for the itinerant in the home fields, or for the missionary on the frontier. A short time was spent in teaching.

He began early to give attention to the anti-secret-society movement, attending the convention of the national association opposed to secret orders at Pittsburg, in 1868, and other conventions of the same organization in subsequent years. His strong convictions on this subject, and the active interest taken in opposing secret societies, led to his election as editor of the Religious Telescope by the General Conference of 1869, the first conference in which this question was made an issue in an election. He was reelected in 1873, with Rev. W. O. Tobey, a man of very pronounced convictions on the same subject, as joint editor. During the eight years of his incumbency the columns of the Religious Telescope were intensely radical.

In 1877 he was elected to the office of bishop. The radicals were at that time so greatly in the majority that they could easily elect any one whom they chose. There was, nevertheless, a considerable number of delegates who, while firmly opposed to secret orders, and supporting the prohibitive measures adopted from time to time by the General Conference, desired a somewhat milder administration in the Religious Telescope. The choice of editor did not lie between the radicals and liberals, but between the radical candidates. Rev. J. W. Hott, now Bishop Hott, who at that time was regarded as a man of moderate views, was chosen. Bishop Wright served four years on the West Mississippi District, and at the General Conference of 1881 was not reelected. In 1885 he was again elected, for the Pacific Coast District.

^p.345 The conference of 1885 having taken the initiatory measures for amending the Constitution of the Church and for the revision of the Confession of Faith, Bishop Wright opposed the action, with all the steps necessarily following, exerting against it all the influence of his official position, and preparing, with others, the way for the secession which followed at the conference of 1889. At this conference his connection with the Church ceased. All his previous career marks him as a laborious, earnest, and plodding worker, faithful to the best interests of the Church as he conceived them to be. He was drawn into a false position, and finally to a most unfortunate step, by an excessive devotion to a single principle and a type of church policy which the great body of the Church had come to regard as untenable.

5. Ezekiel B. Kephart, D.D., LL.D.

The men who have been called to the office of bishop in the United Brethren Church have, with few exceptions, been born in humble circumstances, and their earlier lives have been marked by hard struggle against adverse conditions. Among the recent bishops, and those now living, a number have risen to high distinction as preachers and parliamentarians. Their work in the pulpit and as presidents of assemblies has awakened, and has fully merited, the highest admiration. But all their success has been achieved through unflagging industry, joined to a strong faith in God, who directs the destinies of men. To these conditions Bishop Kephart is not an exception.

The bishop was born in Clearfield County, Pennsylvania, on November 6, 1834. His father was of Swiss origin, with a mixture of English, while his mother was partly of Dutch descent. The parents were members of the United Brethren Church, and the father a minister. The ^p.346 home was a very humble one, situated on the western slope of the Alleghany Mountains. The spirit of true piety ruled in the home, the parents joining together in the effort to bring up their children in the fear of God. The place was frequently visited by other ministers, and protracted meetings were sometimes held there. In this home were brought up three sons who have gained distinction in circles wider than the denomination which they serve, one of them, Dr. I. L. Kephart, being editor of the Religious Telescope, and another, Dr. C. J. Kephart, being general secretary for the State Sunday-school work of Pennsylvania. All of the three have served as college presidents.

Bishop Kephart's early educational opportunities were limited. But when, after his conversion, which occurred at the age of seventeen, his impulses began to draw him toward the Christian ministry, he resolved that he would seek an education. After spending a short time in a seminary, he entered Mount Pleasant College, at the age of twenty-three. When that institution was merged into Otterbein University, he, with many of the rest of the students, followed its destinies to that college. Here he graduated first in the scientific and afterward in the classical course, after unavoidable interruptions growing out of financial circumstances. In 1868 he was elected president of Western College. He accepted the position, and remained as head of the college for a period of thirteen years, until the General Conference called for his service in a higher realm. As the head of the college he at once set about elevating its character, both as to the work done by the classes and in discipline. In this he met with success, giving to the institution a higher tone generally than it had ever possessed before. He was strongly impressed with the unfortunate location of the ^p.347 college, and was instrumental, with others, in effecting its removal to its present excellent place. His success in connection with the college attracted the favorable attention of the General Conference held at Lisbon, Iowa, in 1881, and he was called to the higher service of the episcopal office. Since then he has been three times reelected, so that he is now in his sixteenth year in that office.

As a college president and teacher Bishop Kephart exhibited many of the foremost qualities. His own educational course was achieved under many difficulties, and he could enter into ready sympathy with students who were struggling against adverse circumstances. In teaching he was generous in his attitude toward students, leading them on to investigation for themselves by throwing a genial glow over their work. As a ruler over the college, in the administration of necessary discipline, he was kind and considerate, but inflexible.

As a bishop he has achieved an enviable success. He presides over the conferences, General and annual, with dignified ease, keeping the progress of business well in hand, without liability to confusion. He possesses a clear grasp of parliamentary law, makes his decisions firmly, and business proceeds easily under his direction. The kind geniality of his nature finds frequent expression, and a conference is little liable, even when exciting or irritating questions are under consideration, to drift away from a spirit of pleasant humor. As a member of the episcopal board he is a wise and safe counselor, bearing his full part in deciding the delicate and difficult questions that sometimes come before the board. The first draft of the bishops' quadrennial address before the General Conference of 1885, in which questions affecting most vitally the future of the Church were considered, it is understood was prepared by him. Some features of this address, from the ^p.348 nature of the subjects to which they relate, must acquire a permanent historic character.

Bishop Kephart, as a capable, broad-minded, large-hearted, genial Christian gentleman, with little of private interests to serve, but keeping the best interests of the Church steadily in view, is greatly esteemed in the responsible station to which he has been called.

¹ See p. 305.



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