CHAPTER XXI.

Alexander Clark and Samuel Young—Young's Letter—Offense—Article in Methodist

Protestant—Fraternal Messengers— Unpleasant Mood—Call at Book Room—Made Mattel-
Worse—I >r. Collier—Committee on Fraternal Relations— Grievance—Plain Talk—Dr.
Murray—W. C. Lipscomb's Remarks— Retraction—Spell Broken—Explanations—A
Misunderstanding—Pleasant Ending—Introduced to Conference— Addresses—Messengers of
Methodist Episcopal Church, South — Funny and Flattering Addresses.— John Paris
—"Brethren"—Sunday Services—Something Gained- Resignation as Editor—Resignation
Accepted.

The Rev. Alexander Clark and the Rev. Samuel Young were ardent advocates of a
union of the two branches of the Methodist Protestant Church. They were outspoken
on the subject, and very zealous for its promotion. Indeed, they did not appear to
see any difficulties in the way. Still, the union was a thing that could not be
hurried. The sentiment and feeling in favor of it had to be cultivated, and given
time to grow and strengthen.

In the Methodist Recorder of May 9, 1870, Brother Young had a letter of Church
news, in which he said: "Two hundred and seventy-five members, composed partly of
Methodist Protestants and partly of young converts, headed hy Rev. H. A. Francis,
are knocking for admission into the Methodist Church in Pocahontas County, West
Virginia. This is quite cheering to me, as I have been laboring for years to this
end, but was almost ready to despair of the success of the Methodist Church amidst
the associations of my native home."

This letter gave offense to some of our brethren of the Methodist Protestant
Church, and produced the impression CHAPTER XXI.

Alexander Clark and Samuel Young—Young's Letter—Offense—Article in Methodist

Protestant—Fraternal Messengers— Unpleasant Mood—Call at Book Room—Made Mattel-
Worse—I >r. Collier—Committee on Fraternal Relations— Grievance—Plain Talk—Dr.
Murray—W. C. Lipscomb's Remarks— Retraction—Spell Broken—Explanations—A
Misunderstanding—Pleasant Ending—Introduced to Conference— Addresses—Messengers of
Methodist Episcopal Church, South — Funny and Flattering Addresses.— John Paris
—"Brethren"—Sunday Services—Something Gained- Resignation as Editor—Resignation
Accepted.

The Rev. Alexander Clark and the Rev. Samuel Young were ardent advocates of a
union of the two branches of the Methodist Protestant Church. They were outspoken
on the subject, and very zealous for its promotion. Indeed, they did not appear to
see any difficulties in the way. Still, the union was a thing that could not be
hurried. The sentiment and feeling in favor of it had to be cultivated, and given
time to grow and strengthen.

In the Methodist Recorder of May 9, 1870, Brother Young had a letter of Church
news, in which he said: "Two hundred and seventy-five members, composed partly of
Methodist Protestants and partly of young converts, headed hy Rev. H. A. Francis,
are knocking for admission into the Methodist Church in Pocahontas County, West
Virginia. This is quite cheering to me, as I have been laboring for years to this
end, but was almost ready to despair of the success of the Methodist Church amidst
the associations of my native home."

This letter gave offense to some of our brethren of the Methodist Protestant
Church, and produced the impression on their minds that Brother Young was not
true, that he was acting a double part, and that while he professed to be anxious
for a union of the two Churches, he was, nevertheless, trying to make proselytes
to the Methodist Church from the Methodist Protestant Church, and build up the
former at the expense of the latter.

In the issue of the Methodist Protestant for March 3, 1870, an editorial appeared
reflecting very severely on Brother Young, and calling in question his sincerity,
and winding up by inquiring if all the brethren of the Methodist Church in the
West were like him. This was just the week before the meeting of the Maryland
Conference. There was, perhaps, some apparent grounds for persons unacquainted
with the facts in the case, to challenge Brother Young's position; but the
reflection on all his brethren in the West by wholesale was entirely gratuitous,
without any just cause, and very unkind.

I was one of the fraternal messengers from our Conference to the Maryland
Conference, to meet the next week, and I had arranged with Brother John Cowl,
another of our fraternal messengers, to meet him at Benwood, below Wheeling, on
the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, at a certain time. Before I received the Methodist
Protestant containing the editorial above referred to, I had procured my ticket to
Baltimore. When I read the editorial I was greatly surprised, and righteously
indignant. I felt that I could not carry fraternal greetings to those who accused
me and my brethren, as I understood it, of deception and double-dealing. But as I
had my ticket, and had not time to cancel my engagement with Brother Cowl, and did
not wish to disappoint him, I concluded to go and see what explanation could be
made, and what would come of the whole thing. So I took the train at the appointed
time, and met Brother Cowl according to agreement. He had read the editorial, and
was as much exercised over it as I was; but we agreed to go to Westminster, where
the Conference met, and see the end of it. In Baltimore we met Brother T. H.
Colhouer and Brother William Rinehart, also fraternal messengers, and we were all
in the same mood.

Having a little time to spare, we called at the Methodist Protestant Book Room,
and found that all the preachers had gone to Conference. Brother Thomas Ewing, the
Book Agent, was there, and on mentioning the matter of the editorial to him, he
informed us that it had been in type for two or three weeks, and that they
hesitated to publish it; but at last concluded to let it appear. This only made
the matter worse. It was not published hastily and on a sudden impulse; but was a
matter of deliberation and forethought, and was a designed and premeditated
insult. You have heard of March hares, and how mad they get. Well, we were not
wickedly mad; but we felt like resenting an imputation which we knew to be
unfounded and unjust. With this feeling we went to the Conference as fraternal
messengers. When we got to Westminster we met Dr. Collier, an old Marylander, and
he was as much insulted as any of us. We were, however, assigned to very pleasant
lodgings, and went to the church where the Conference was being held.

At a suitable time Dr. .T. J. Murray, chairman of the Committee on Fraternal

Relations, called his committee together, and requested us to meet with them, in
view of fixing a time agreeable to all parties for addressing the Conference. The
committee and our delegation met, and Dr. Murray wished to know when it would be
agreeable to us to be presented to the Conference and make our addresses. We
informed him that there was a little matter that had to be arranged before we
would consent to be in troduced to the Conference and address the body. We told
the committee that we had been openly insulted but a week before in their official
paper, and our sincerity and honor called in question, and unless that accusation
was withdrawn, we would not consent to be introduced to the Conference at all, and
would not appear before it. Each of our delegation spoke, and, I suppose, with
some earnestness, and there were several responses.

At length, Dr. Murray, chairman of the committee, a man I afterwards learned to

love, felt constrained to inform us that he did not feel disposed, under the
influence of threats, to make any explanations in the case. It did not appear much
like a love-feast, although nothing indecorous had been said. Then Brother William
C. Lipscomb rose, and made some severe remarks about the Western brethren, when
suddenly, as if conscience-stricken, he paused, and in a peculiar manner said, "I
will not say that; I take that all back." There was something in his look and
manner that amused us all, and we indulged in a laugh at his expense. This was
like a ray of sunshine, and seemed to inspire us all with a different spirit, and
started a new line of thought.

Dr. Collier was at that time president of the Pittsburg Conference, and was
familiar with the facts in the case of Brother Young. He told the committee that
there was no ground for the charge against him. When the West Virginia Conference
disbanded during the Rebellion, it was agreed that each charge should choose its
own associations, and affiliate with the Southern or Northern division of the
Church as it might think best. The Pocahontas Circuit had not connected itself
with either branch of the Church; but stood alone as an idependent body, without
any ecclesiastical affiliations, and Brother Young did not try to get anybody to
leave the Methodist Protestant Church, but only tried to get this independent
circuit that stood out in the cold, to come into the sheltering fold of the
Methodist Church, which he certainly had a right in all good faith to do. This was
a revelation to our Maryland brethren, who supposed that the Pocahontas Circuit
was connected with one of their Conferences, and that Brother Young had been
trying to get it to secede and unite with the Methodist Church. Admitting the
facts stated by Brother Collier, the charge made in the Protestant was, of course,
groundless, and based on a misapprehension of facts. The committee being convinced
of these facts, like Brother Lipscomb, were willing to take back what had been
said in the Protestant; and Dr. Murray promised, which promise he kept, that in
introducing us to the Conference he would explain the misapprehension of facts,
and relieve us of the imputation which had been cast upon us.

The next day was fixed upon as the time for our addresses to the Conference. Dr.
Murray introduced us in a few neat remarks, in which he relieved us of the
imputation and embarrassment under which we had labored. Dr. William Collier, the
senior member of our delegation, and who had been president of the Maryland
Conference, led off in one of his most happy addresses, and was followed by Dr.
John Cowl, and after that by the other members of the delegation. The Conference
was evidently favorably impressed, and the spirit of union was strengthened.

While Dr. Cowl was speaking, a fraternal delegation from the Baltimore Conference
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, consisting of Dr. Rozel, Dr. Poisel, and
a local minister, whose name I can not recall, arrived, and requested to be heard
just after us, as they wished to return to Baltimore that evening. Their reqviest
was granted, and at the close of our addresses. Dr. "Rozel proceeded to address
the Conference. He evidently perceived that we had made an impression on the
Conference, and he desired to dissipate it. His address was a very humorous one.
He compared Methodism to a kite. At first it had no tail; but it flew very well.
After a few years the brethren concluded that it needed a tail, and they put the
Episcopal tail to it, and still it flew very well. After a while a party in the
Church thought the tail was too long, and they wanted to cut part of it off. Still
it flew nicely. But after a time another party thought one tail was not enough,
and they put another tail to it, and still it was flying grandly. In this way he
directed attention to the introduction of Episcopacy into the economy of
Methodism, the attempt of the Reformers to curtail its powers, and the final
division of the Church into two Episcopal bodies, North and South. His whole
address was humorous and witty, and produced a good deal of mirth in the
Conference. At the close of his address, the local minister, rather an aged man,
addressed the Conference, and lauded the old men of the Conference to the sky.
They were grand men. He had never known their superiors. He evidently designed to
make the old men feel comfortable, and be on good terms with themselves. Dr.
Poisel, an old bachelor, as we were informed, proceeded in his address to eulogize
the young men of the Conference. They were noble young men, destined to make their
mark in the world, and much of that sort of thing. The Baltimore delegation
evidently desired the Conference to think well of itself; still we did not think
they made a very favorable impression. Their addresses contained too much fun and
compliment for sensible men to thoroughly relish.

On the next day the Rev. Dr. John Paris. of North Carolina, addressed the
Conference. Dr. Paris told the Conference that they had heard on the day before
the fraternal greetings of brethren from other Churches; but he came from one of
their own Conferences, which had always been in sympathy with them. They were
brethren, and had always seen eye to eye. In order to demonstrate this, he told
them that when he came into Frederick, with Stonewall Jackson, as chaplain, during
the late war, he was rather dilapidated in appearance; but he was still a
Methodist Protestant, and had his Methodist Protestant hymn-book and Discipline in
his haversack. He inquired if there were any Methodist Protestants in Frederick,
and was directed to the residence of Rev. Dr. Daniel Reece (who was, by the way, a
loyal man). The Doctor treated him kindly, and invited him to take tea with him,
and they had a pleasant interview. The purport of it all was, "I was a rebel; but
you and I were still brethren, and in full sympathy with each other." His address
was hardly a happy one. The people about Westminster, we were told, were generally
loyal during the war, and some of them had suffered considerably from the
depredations of the Confederates, and we fancied that Dr. Paris's address did not
suit them very well. He was a good man, and loved and trusted by his brethren; but
we were still too near the scenes of conflict and blood through which we had
passed, for men to entirely forget their sectional differences. Upon the whole, we
thought the people appeared to be more in sympathy with their Northern than their
Southern brethren.

The Sunday services were pleasant and profitable. Dr. Cowl preached in the
Methodist Protestant Church in the morning one of his grand and touching sermons,
and evidently got hold of the hearts of the people. In the afternoon there was an
excellent love-feast. At night I preached on the great design of the gospel, "to
gather together in one all things in Christ." Whatever might be said of the
sermon, it was a good subject, and adapted to the occasion.

Our delegation returned home from the Conference in much better spirits than when
they went. We felt that we had lost nothing, but had made some permanent gain. We
and our Maryland brethren evidently understood each other a little better than we
had before. It was clear that we were not yet ready for union; but the way was
being prepared, and we were getting nearer each other.

On the 27th day of April, 1870, for reasons which I deemed sufficient, I tendered
my resignation as editor of the Methodist Recorder to the Board of Publication, to
take effect on the 15th day of September following. My resignation did not result
from any unpleasantness of any kind connected with my position, for my relations
with the Board and the publisher were of the most agreeable character. Nor was my
work uncongenial. My reasons were purely personal, and I never had occasion to
regret my act. I think it was entirely proper, and, indeed, it seems to me the
hand of Providence was in it. When I resigned it was in view of returning to the
pastorate; but I had no place in view, and did not know whether iny services would
be called for anywhere or not. It was not long, however, till I received an
invitation to serve the Sixth Street Church, Cincinnati. This invitation I
accepted, subject, of course, to the authority of the stationing power of the
Conference. In the meantime I labored faithfully to perform my duty on the paper,
and did not relax my efforts in that direction.

On the 25th of May the Board of Publication, at its annual meeting, accepted my
resignation as editor, and unanimously elected Rev. Alexander Clark to be my
successor. This proved to be a happy selection. Brother Clark had rare gifts for
such a position. He was a very genial and companionable man. and wielded a facile
pen. As a descriptive writer he had few equals.

Fifty Years In The Ministry:

WiTH

NUMEROUS CHARACTER SKETCHES.

BY

JOHN SCOTT, D. D.,

Author Op "pulpit Echoes," "the Land Of Sojourn," And "A

Catechism Of The Doctrines, History, And Polity Of
The Methodist Protestant Church," Etc.