The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, vol. 4

VII. “Bath Resolutions” Forbid Dissemination of Adventism

According to the record, during 1842 and 1843, some thirty ministers in the Maine Methodist Conference became interested in and preached the message of the second advent. Conspicuous results in accessions followed their preaching. These ministers, according to Wellcome, included the names of Cox, Greeley, Smith, Atkins, Hopkins, Robinson, Palmer, Gay, Strout, Wellcome, Shaw, Butler, and Higgins. ²⁹ A widespread revival followed. Prayer meetings were numerous. Sinners were inquiring, What must we do to be saved? Wanderers were returning to God. It was just at this time that the eighteenth session of the conference was held at Bath, Maine, on July 19, and a series of resolutions passed bearing on Millerism. Bishop PFF4 775.6

E. Hedding presided, and W. H. Pilsbury (the historian) was secretary. “Millerism” occupied most of the time of the session. Allen and Pilsbury simply state: PFF4 776.1

“The subject of Millerism came very prominently before the conference. The second advent excitement had become quite extensive during the year; lecturers had travelled over the country, with charts and hideous diagrams, demonstrating that the second coming of Christ, to destroy the world and inaugurate the judgment, would occur on the 23rd of April, 1843.” ³⁰ PFF4 776.2

The preachers generally, they add, “opposed the delusion.” But, they continue: PFF4 776.3

“Eight or ten members of conference and three members on trial, were found to have advocated Millerism; some of whom had left their work, as pastors, for this purpose. These brethren were called to account, and by vote of the conference, were reproved by the presiding bishop and required to abstain from advocating ‘the peculiarities of Millerism,’ one was suspended, and the rest ‘passed.’ Those who were not present were notified of the action of the conference, by the Secretary, and their character passed. The members on trial, who had offended in this matter, were committed to their presiding elders for reproof and correction. PFF4 776.4

“The action of the conference was timely and judicious. The brethren who had been led astray by this delusion, with a few exceptions, saw their error, and, like honest men, meekly submitted to the censure of the conference. They were restored to the confidence of their brethren, and most of them rendered valuable service to the church, in their subsequent life. The few recalcitrant offenders withdrew from the church, went on from bad to worse, till, like wandering stars, they disappeared in darkness.” ³¹ PFF4 776.5

The first of the resolutions passed (cited in full in the Bath Maine Inquirer) called upon ministers and elders to minister the doctrines and discipline Christ “hath commanded,” and to be ready to “banish and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God’s Word.” The second declared specifically that the “peculiarities of that theory relative to the second coming of Christ and the end of the world, denominated Millerism, together with all its modifications, are contrary to the standards of the church, and we are constrained to regard them as among the erroneous and strange doctrines which we are pledged to banish and drive away.” The third declared the course of those “who persist in disseminating those peculiarities,” to be “irreconcilably inconsistent with their ecclesiastical obligations,” and as having “an ultimate, disastrous tendency.” And the fourth read: PFF4 776.6

“4. Resolved, that those who persist in disseminating those peculiarities, either in public or private, and especially those who have left their appropriate work for this purpose, be admonished by the Chair, and all be hereby required to refrain entirely from disseminating them in future.” ³² PFF4 777.1

Still another gave Cox “leave to withdraw the resolution offered by him to the Conference, and referred to us.” These Bath resolutions, according to Wellcome, though passed by a nonlegislative body, were then “pressed into the statutes of Methodism” and restricted to Millerism. This, he adds, was because the laws of Methodism are silent relative to the time of the second advent. Some “arbitrary appendage” must be attached or nothing could be done. Cox held that, on this matter, as heretofore, men should be allowed to differ “without fault or rebuke.” Millerism, he held, should not be a cause of degradation, or influence the stations to which men are appointed. PFF4 777.2

Levi F. Stockman protested their action on the basis that they had declared his sentiments to be “contrary to Methodism.” But they replied that the contrariness of Millerism to Methodism had been settled by the resolutions of the conference, and the committee had only to determine whether he had been preaching that doctrine. To this ruling Stockman also objected, and appealed to the Discipline of the Methodist Church as the only law by which he could be tried, and asked that the article of Methodist faith be brought forward to which his teachings were contrary. Again the answer was simply that this had been settled. The chairman directed that they should proceed with the trial on the grounds laid down in the Discipline, as “explained and applied by the Annual Conference as its acts define,” ³³ without telling what grounds or where they could be found. PFF4 777.3

The charge was concerning articles of religion “as explained by our standard authors”—yet the defendant held that no reference had been made either to the Discipline or to any standard writings. And no annual local conference, Stockman held, has a right to make a law, as the General Conference alone is the legislative body. That, he contended, was an assumption of arbitrary power, and neutralizes every principle of justice and right procedure. Such is the record of Wellcome, who personally passed through this crisis hour in Maine. ³⁴ PFF4 778.1