1 Chapter Two Barry Moody, in his study of the early history of Acadia College, observed that from the

time of its establishment in 1838, until well into the next century, many maritime Baptists harboured considerable fear that education would smother piety, that the search for earthly wisdom would ³divert the pious young man from his search for the real meaning of life.´1 These were sentiments firmly rooted in New Light practices and beliefs, particularly those of Henry Alline, who had preached without any regard for formal education or training. Within his journal Alline posited the belief that education was not necessary for a preacher, and in fact could be harmful. ³O the prejudices of education!´ he wrote. ³I began to see that I had all this time been led astray by labouring so much after human learning and wisdom, and had held back from the call of God.´ To Alline, a preacher needed nothing to qualify him ³but Christ; and that if [he] should have all the wisdom that could ever be obtained by mortals, without having the spirit of Christ with [him], [he] should never have any success in preaching.´2 Alline asked questions such as ³has Christ not got learning enough?´ and ³Is he not able to teach you in half an hour in his school, more than you¶ll be able to obtain in the seats of human learning all your life?´3 The shift to an interest in education represented a fundamental change in the character of the Baptist denomination, and a major move away from New Light tradition.4 Institutions like Acadia, and the Baptist seminary founded in Fredericton in 1836, were built not to conserve a way of life, but ³to be the vehicle by which that life could be changed.´ They existed not to safeguard a social position, but to advance it.5 The development of educational institutions provided a means of training the ministry, which provided an increase in prestige for the ministers and attracted to the Church¶s ranks young men increasingly interested in professional advancement. It also contributed to the welfare of the community rather than the separateness of a particular religious group, marking a break from the past by drawing the Baptists closer to the life of the broader community. According to sociologist S.D. Clark, the Baptist denomination became an institutional system of religion, and education provided it with the means of perpetuating itself from generation to generation, and attracting younger people who had not inherited the sectarian loyalties of their parents.6 Education also provided the denomination with the means to keep up with the age of progress and general advancement in which they believed they lived. To prominent Baptist leaders like Rev. Edward Manning in Nova Scotia and Rev. Frederick Miles in New Brunswick, the dramatic inroads made in the first half of the nineteenth century into the middle and upper classes of Halifax and Saint John were clear proof of God¶s work on the march.7 Intellectual competence among the ministry was demanded by the expectations of this important and growing segment of the Church membership, who believed that only ³growing men´ could gain and retain the respect of congregations in an increasingly learned age.8 It was no coincidence that the primary advocate for the establishment of Acadia College was J. W. Johnston, a prominent Halifax lawyer and Conservative

2 politician. Johnston was a leading member of the city¶s Anglican community until he and others split with the church in the 1820s over the appointment of a suitable evangelical minister, and organized the Granville Street Baptist Church. That the Halifax Baptist clique did not represent the views of many rural Baptists on either general education or ministerial training did not prevent them from spearheading the drive to achieve both for the denomination. For years, the Anglican establishment had derided the Baptists for their lack of learning. By the 1830s the Baptist leadership, energized by the former Anglicans in their midst, had begun to take steps, through education, to become a denomination that would be able ³to appeal to others than those of their own body.´9 The result was a more secular orientation to the Nova Scotia Baptist community and a rapidly growing acceptance of the emerging North Atlantic evangelical consensus that linked material success with spiritual integrity and growth.10 The New Brunswick Baptists had their own Johnston in the form of William Boyd Kinnear, a prominent lawyer and politician. Like Johnston, Kinnear was an Anglican until 1828 when, after inquiring into Baptist teaching through his acquaintance with some of the charter members of the Granville Street Baptist Church, he was immersed while on a visit to Halifax11. He became the leading advocate of the establishment of the Fredericton Baptist Seminary, which he believed to be crucial in the development and progress of the denomination both at home and, given the growing interest of the Baptist leaders in foreign mission work, abroad.12 Kinnear¶s most important ally among the Baptist ministers in the promotion of increased education for the New Brunswick Baptists was Rev. Frederick W. Miles, who had begun his career with a pastorate in Saint John and then moved to Fredericton in the early 1830s. As was the case with Kinnear and Johnston, Miles came from an Anglican family. He had also attended King¶s College in Windsor, and received theological training in the late 1820s. These men were not representative of the social status of the vast majority of New Brunswick Baptists, but they did represent what many Baptists, particularly the young, aspired to achieve. The Methodists also began to seriously consider establishing a denominational secondary school in the early 1830s, a process which led to the founding of the Sackville Wesleyan Academy after Charles H. Allison of Sackville. Allison, another former Anglican and now an influential Methodist, offered in 1839 to provide means for the establishment of a school that would be ³truly Christian and Methodistical´, where ³Pure Religion is not only taught but Constantly brought before the Youthful mind.´13 As with the Baptist leadership, this reflected the belief that in secondary schools and colleges in which the functional colonial elites, including ministers, of a modern society would be trained, the denomination itself should assume responsibility for the training, with the assistance and cooperation of the state.14 They were determined to provide opportunities for young Baptists and Methodists who would not otherwise have had even the rudiments of higher education. However, as with the Baptist membership, not all Methodists were convinced that education and piety could co-exist, particularly where preachers were concerned.

3 The divisions that the issue of ministerial training and education created were observed and recorded by a British visitor to New Brunswick. While attending a Baptist general meeting in the early 1840s, Frances Beaven watched as these issues were fiercely debated. ³[The] present subject,´ she observed, ³was the appropriation of certain funds whether they should be applied towards increasing their seminary, so as to fit it for the proper education of ministers for their churches, or whether they should be applied to some other purpose, and their priesthood still be allowed to spring uncultured from the mass.´ The opposition to funding the seminary, Beavan recalled, came from ³some whiteheaded leaders of the sect, old refugees, who had left the bounds of civilization before they had received any education,´ and who ³sternly declaimed against the education system, declaring that grace [alone] was what formed the teacher.´ By the 1840s, however, those in favour held the upper hand, as the ³old men, stern in their prejudices as their zeal, were conquered, and the baptists have now well conducted establishments of learning throughout the province.´15 With the establishment of Acadia College, the Fredericton Seminary, and Mount Allison, along with the creation of numerous Sabbath Schools, the Baptist and Methodist leadership, despite lingering doubters within, were firmly committed to secondary education and ministerial training by 1850. As was shown in Chapter One, the Free Christian Baptists, of all the major Protestant denominations in mid-century New Brunswick, were the last to accept the values and changes of mainstream Victorian evangelicalism. It is therefore not surprising to find that by 1850 the issue of education, whether for preachers specifically or the young in general, had not been considered to any meaningful extent. In the rural areas that comprised the heartland of the denomination there was little agitation for regular schooling prior to the 1850s, as fathers felt their sons would learn far more valuable skills - and provide free labour - working on the farm that they would one day inherit. Most of them believed in the necessity of learning how to read or write, as these were skills which they knew were important for running a farm and conducting business, and for being able to understand God¶s word as written in the Bible, which was imperative in order for a Christian to participate as an equal in the affairs of the Church. Sabbath schools were the first real attempt to provide a basic knowledge of reading and writing to their children. To the Elders they were primarily instruments for the promotion of their brand of Christianity and the indoctrination of a second generation of potential converts in the basic principles and practices of the denomination.16 To the parishioners, however, they provided more tangible and immediate benefits, namely literacy and selfimprovement within a secure Christian environment. Most important, it was an institution that was readily adapted to suit local requirements and tastes. Conditions for acceptance by rural congregations included the use of home-grown teachers, the maintenance of local autonomy against denominational control, and the integration of the school into the local community.17 Where these conditions were present, Sabbath schools were usually established and fairly well maintained. Very few parents, however, saw their children becoming doctors or lawyers, or ever leaving the community in which they had been born

4 and moving to Saint John or Fredericton to start a business. With such a world view, any education beyond the basics of the Sabbath school was perceived prior to the 1850s as a luxury that could not be afforded.18 The fact that education was primarily reserved for the colonial elite, namely Anglicans, made it seem like an even more unattainable, and unnecessary, goal. The educational standards, as a result, were ³lamentably low, and the system poorly organized and haphazard´ outside of the urban areas. The experience of John Foster is illustrative of the problems confronted by parents in Carleton County who wished to secure even the rudiments of an education for their children in the 1840s and 1850s. Foster was a farmer in Wakefield and a keen member of the Free Christian Baptist church there. He had very limited education himself, but he did read the Bible regularly - it was the only book in the house - and on occasion wrote poetry. His son George, born in 1847, was pressed into service on the farm at the young age of eight, but Foster was also determined that his son should enjoy as ³good an education as he could afford.´ Young George would attend school whenever it was in session in his community, and was sent to neighbouring settlements and ³boarded out´ when it was not.19 The type of education that Foster¶s son received, however, was mediocre at best. ³One learned by rote almost exclusively,´ George Foster later recalled, ³and studied certain lessons aloud in school hours with competition and intolerable din and noise.´ The quality of the teachers, who were underpaid and usually untrained, was also poor. In George Foster¶s case, ³not more than half of [them] could take one further than the compound rules of arithmetic and reduction to whom fractions were terra incognita.´20 The reasons for the poor quality of schooling in Wakefield were clear to Foster, who wrote: Subsidiary aid there was little. Libraries there were none; books were a rare commodity; there was only an occasional weekly paper, and now and then a stray lecture, with the Sunday school and church service intermittent. Under such circumstances, from seven years of age to fifteen, my educational privileges were scanty, and the fruitage not abundant.21 Although the government provided aid to teachers who had been employed to teach in parish schools under the authority of local school trustees, it was ³[a] rate of remuneration not well calculated to attract competent persons, and the result was very unsatisfactory.´22 The teachers ³had a mere smattering of learning [and] were very incompetent instructors.´ They often lodged with the parents of the pupils, living at each house in proportion to the number of scholars sent. When books were available, there was no uniformity to those prescribed, and there was no standardized testing. This system, wrote historian James Hannay, ³raised [the teacher] but one degree above the condition of paupers, was not conducive to their comfort or self-respect.´23 Thus, even though like John Foster wanted to secure a decent education for his son, the opportunities and facilities for doing so were

5 lacking. By the 1850s the evangelical reform movement, as a result of this substandard education system, and as part of its overall attack on the privileges of the Anglican elite, was taking a much more active interest in the colonial education system at the parish school level. Lemuel Wilmot, one of New Brunswick¶s leading Methodist legislators, speaking at the opening of the first provincial exhibition in 1852, put forward the case for a common-school system that would ensure that all children would have the benefit of a basic minimum education. ³It is unpardonable,´ he told the crowd, ³that any child should grow up in our country without the benefit of, at least, a common-school education. It is the right of the child [and] the duty not only of the parent but of the people; the property of the country should educate the country.´ In a resounding critique of the privilege of the urban colonial elite, Wilmot said, ³I want the children of the poor in the remote settlements to receive the advantages now almost confined to their more fortunate brethren and sisters of the towns.´ Linking the cause of religious equality with educational equality, he stated: I know full well that God has practised no partiality in the distribution of the noblest of his gifts - the intellect; I know that in many a retired hamlet of our province - amid many a scene of painful poverty and toil there may be found young minds ardent and ingenious and as worthy of cultivation as those of the pampered children of our cities. It is greatly important to the advancement of our country that these should be instructed. ³All,´ he concluded, ³are interested in the diffusion of that intelligence which conserves the peace and promotes the well-being of society.´24 Even people with little regard for education in general could be interested in its promotion when the question of religious equality was involved. A desire to achieve equality with the Anglican elite was not the only motivating factor, however. As Baptist and Methodist leaders pressed for a common-schools system, they endeavoured to ensure its ³Christian character´, and they also fought against any compromise that would allow Roman Catholics to have separate schools. As with most other components of the evangelical reform agenda, McLeod and the other key Free Christian Baptist reformers realized in the early 1850s that to not support and encourage a broad, pro-education program, would be to surrender any hope of securing a place of importance for their denomination within the broader evangelical culture of Victorian New Brunswick. They saw the common-schools debate, rooted in the struggle for religious and social equality with Anglicans, and possessed of anti-Catholic overtones, as the perfect vehicle for enlisting support for greater education, including the more contentious issue of an educated clergy, among rural Free Christian Baptists like John Foster. In 1855 the Conference appointed three Elders- McLeod and Joseph Noble, both

6 reformers, and Charles McMullin, one of the founders of the denomination in 1832 and a committed populist - to a committee to study the issue of education and report their findings. Their report found that ³The education of a child consists in more than the mere development of its physical and intellectual powers - it embraces also educated moral sense.´ The committee was careful to link education to Christian moral reform. They warned that ³Intellectual education may be acquired without the formation of moral principles,´ a reflection of the traditional suspicion towards education felt by many in the denomination. In order to ensure that this was not the case, it was the duty of all good Christians to ensure that ³the Bible is the foundation of all correct education.´ The recommendations of the committee summed up the goals of both the reformers and the traditionalists. They urged the Conference to appoint another committee to ³ascertain during the ensuing year, as far as possible, the educational wants of our denomination - to enquire into the best mode of giving our children and the children of others a sound religious education.´ This language stressed the religious aspect of education, and appeared to demonstrate a cautious approach. The inquiry was to be done in such a way, however, as to ³promote our influence and usefulness in the world,´ and to enable the children of Free Christian Baptists to ³become valuable members of society, and to fill, if required, honourable offices in the world.´ The committee was telling the denomination that education was no longer inaccessible to them. It also hinted at the reformers¶ belief that in order to advance both as individuals and as a denomination, education was necessary. The new committee on education was comprised of Noble and McLeod, but McMullin was replaced by Benjamin Boal, a layperson who was attending his first Conference. His inclusion meant that the reformers were now firmly in control of the direction the committee¶s recommendations would take.25 The report of this new committee on education was delivered at the 1856 annual Conference meeting. It was the first real opportunity for McLeod and the reformers to completely outline their beliefs on education to the denomination. The report began by stating that the committee considered the ³educational wants´ of the denomination to be ³very great´, a situation for which they identified two primary causes: ...first, the value of a sound and useful education has not been clearly understood by our people, and hence it has not been appreciated as it should have been. Second, the facilities for education have been so exceedingly limited that when any did wish to advance beyond the ordinary bounds, it was exceedingly difficult for them to do so, and hence the limited opportunities rendered education more limited and less sought after. After detailing these two causes, however, the committee paused to mention another. ³We should not´, the committee wrote, ³omit noticing another cause which has had its effect, and that is, the idea that education was detrimental to piety.´ Here was a direct recognition of the traditional New Light suspicion that education and knowledge promoted pride and

7 destroyed humility. The reformers immediately attacked this proposition. They observed that ³this is a great error, inasmuch as a sound religious education is one of the greatest blessings on earth, without which there can be no real moral or social elevation.´ The phrase ³religious education´ was standard for progressive reformers throughout British North America. They hoped to expand the place of religion in the classroom by removing special privileges and creating a school system that would ³fearlessly sustain the Protestant character of our nationality and our institutions.´ Rather than undermining piety, they argued, education would be used to nurture and expand the influence of Christianity.26 The first recommendation made by the committee was the establishment of an effective common school system. They expressed concern, however, that ³due care may not be taken to insure the use of the Bible in all our common schools.´ There was no doubt in the minds of the reformers that, ³as a Protestant nation, so deeply indebted to that precious book´, there had to be provision for its use in the classroom. ³In every place of instruction which draws a stipend, or occasional grant, from the public funds,´ the committee wrote, ³we ought to provide for, and insist on its use.´ There would be no separate schools for Catholics, as there could be no question of the Protestant character of a common schools system. These were views that were certain to be greeted with enthusiasm by the antiCatholic, Orange-ist element of the denomination. For those who were worried about the growth of secularism in society but recognized, like John Foster, the need for their children to receive an education, this stern defence of the importance of instilling an unshakeable religious code in the minds of youth by linking education to Protestant belief was equally welcome and re-assuring.27 To those who were still leery of education, however, the committee had a different message, structured to appeal to their common sense. The reformers recognized that the nature of work had begun to undergo a major transformation, from the pre-industrial society of self-employed artisans, farmers and merchants, to the ³modern´ situation in which larger factories, businesses and bureaucratic organizations had started to employ the majority of the work force. In the pre-industrial society, sons had followed the occupations of their fathers, and each small community was perceived as a relatively structured hierarchy of ranks and orders, based on the local structure of occupations. This societal order, the reformers realized, was breaking down. Signs of the shift from preindustrial to industrial society were found everywhere -in the building of railroads and telegraph systems, the growth of urban populations, the large lumber camps and mills. For the present generation, the old patterns might endure, but for the young, the only future was uncertainty. It was this problem that the reformers believed education would solve.28 ³Our sons,´ wrote the committee, ³must be prepared to fill positions of trust, honor, and emolument, or submit to be hewers of wood, and drawers of water.´29 The young men of the denomination, the committee warned, were calling upon the leadership for educational facilities. ³Shall we open up to them the highway of eminence,´ asked the committee, ³or shall we bind on them the yoke of ignorance, or, what is perhaps more likely, thrust them

8 out from us to seek elsewhere what we refuse to provide for them, and thus deprive our churches of their best and most valuable members?´30 However good a common school system might be, however, to the reformers it only provided for ³an ordinary and common education, comprising only the first branches of knowledge.´ In order to be prepared for ³the more elevated and usefull [sic] stations in life,´ the committee wrote, ³an education superior to that obtained in these schools is necessary.´ If the denomination were to keep its best and brightest young men, they concluded, it must ³have under its controul [sic] educational establishments to meet the wants of its youth, while preparing them for usefullness [sic] in secular callings.´ The time had ³fully come´, determined the committee, when the Free Christian Baptists had to take action. They recommended that ³measures be immediately taken to get into operation as soon as possible an educational establishment, under our own influence and control [sic], in which the higher branches of knowledge shall be taught.´31 With this recommendation, McLeod and the reformers had gone beyond simple agitation for common school reform. They were now talking about starting a denominational school, similar to the Fredericton Baptist Seminary or the Sackville Academy Here they were entering upon more uncertain ground. Most members of the denomination could see that a common schools system of some sort was going to be implemented by the government sooner or later, and supported efforts to ensure that it retained a Protestant outlook and that the education taught was based on Christian principles. Schools, they hoped, would also provide a way to meet what was seen as the growing social crisis of noninstitutionalized youth, by taking them off the streets and away from secular influences and teaching them to respect the existing structure of society.32 A Church operated and funded institution of ³higher learning´, however, was a different proposition altogether. The report was received by the Conference, which then passed a motion that asked McLeod to bring the subject of education before the denomination more fully through the Religious Intelligencer, and endeavour to increase interest on the subject. A committee, comprised of McLeod, fellow reformers Noble, Deacons Daniel Clark and Leonard Slipp, all from the Fifth District, and Hartt, was also struck to ³ascertain as nearly as possible the views and wishes of our people generally on this subject.´33 On the issue of education, as with the cause of moral reform, McLeod found that Free Christian Baptists were willing to support broad interdenominational initiatives such as common school reform, but were far less willing to accept changes that affected their own denomination, such as the necessity of an educated ministry, or the need for a denominational academy. Changing society was one thing; changing the Church was another. The editorials of the Religious Intelligencer in the two years following the committee¶s 1856 report clearly indicate the backing the reformers felt they had on the former issue, and the opposition they were encountering on the latter. For example, McLeod felt no need to extol the virtues of the common school system in his editorials. Instead, he sensed that he was secure enough in denominational support to concentrate

9 on how the system should be implemented, particularly the question of whether or not the Bible was to be used in the schools. The Public School Bill introduced by Tilley in 1858 ignited a storm of controversy between Catholics and Protestants throughout New Brunswick. The following amendment was inserted into a bill which was otherwise not contentious: The Board of Education shall by Regulation secure to all children whose parents or guardians do not object to it, the reading of the Bible in Parish Schools.34 A further amendment was passed which allowed Roman Catholic children, if required by their parents, to read the ³Douay´, or Catholic, version, without note or comment.35 As Carl Wallace has observed in his biography of Tilley, there are few more controversial issues in New Brunswick history than the implications of the ³Douay´ amendment.36 McLeod lobbied against the bill from the moment the amendment was passed. In a scathing editorial on 12 March, 1858, he wrote that the bill threw ³contempt on the Sacred Scriptures´ by providing that the Protestant Bible may be in the school libraries instead of mandating that ³it shall be there.´ McLeod then attacked the Catholics, always a popular stance with the traditionalist elements of the denomination. ³Romanists object to the Bible,´ he wrote, ³and all books of Protestant tendency, and will not allow their children to be instructed from them.´ Despite widespread Protestant opposition, the two Bibles stayed, even though Tilley maintained that if the amendment had not been approved, the ³result would be separate schools´, which would have been even worse.37 While the reformers¶ position on the common schools question, and their anti-Catholic rhetoric in particular, was popular with the traditionalists, McLeod and the other reformers on the committee appointed in 1856 to canvass opinion amongst the congregations concerning the question of a denominational school and ministerial education met with significant opposition. The issue was not discussed at the 1857 Conference, and by January 1858 McLeod felt obliged to print a strong editorial designed to answer the sentiment against ministerial education and training that he had encountered. ³Is learning necessary?´ he asked. ³I have no doubt that many honestly suppose not only that learning is unnecessary but actually injurious and wrong,´ he wrote. He warned that those who held such views were fighting against God, who: ... calls [men] to preach the gospel. He expects them to µStudy¶ to improve their minds, multiply their resources, and make the most of themselves, and thereby µto show themselves approved unto God¶... Though author of all things, God chooses to furnish the raw materials and leave man to modify them according to his taste and circumstances...we... assert that the man called to preach must labor must learn to preach.

10 Then, in a direct repudiation of New Light belief, he wrote that ³until we have evidence that [the minister], as a privileged person, may obtain it by miracle or intuition, we must believe that he can obtain it only in the ordinary way - by study and observation.´ Not only must the heart be cultivated, McLeod advised his fellow Free Christian Baptists, but a minister must cultivate the intellect as well. Education was the ³hand-maid of religion,´ he wrote, and the ³ministry have no right to dispise [sic] it.´ In conclusion, he asked, ³shall infidelity and error have all the advantage, and triumph over truth, merely because we will not bring to our aid so important an instrumentality.´38 McLeod sought to replace what he saw as false and pretentious claims to authority with new criteria rooted in skill, training and expertise. From this editorial, however, it is clear that here, unlike the common schools question, the traditionalist Elders, such as Hartt, Orser, and Pennington, had voiced considerable opposition, in principle, to the reformers¶ views on ministerial education. These were men who firmly believed that God¶s will was to be found in the very revelations which McLeod dismissed as ³intuition,´ and they continued to enjoy widespread support for these beliefs in the rural areas. They worried that a minister who diverted his attention away from preaching and towards formal education would become ³so stiff, cold and dead that their usefulness is destroyed´39 Despite these concerns, however, the annual Conference meeting of 1858 convened a committee on Education which presented substantial recommendations on the question of an educational institution for the denomination. The committee included reformers, like Elders Edward Weyman and George A. Hartley, and two of the most conservative traditionalists, Orser and Pennington. Remarkably, these men all agreed that the Conference should accept an ambitious proposal put forward by William Peters to establish an educational institution in Saint John connected to the denomination, on the condition that the denomination would not be subject to any financial liabilities. The plan was to obtain a provincial grant to defray the costs of setting up and operating the school, while the Conference would appoint an Educational Conference Committee to look after the religious instruction of the school.40 The fact that the committee, with its diverse membership, endorsed this proposal, was an indication of the influence the reformers had gained throughout the 1850s. As with his support for the Intelligencer in 1853, Orser¶s agreement on the proposal was quite likely won in no small part because of McLeod¶s vehement anti-Catholicism on the common schools question, as well as the fact that McLeod had not yet gone so far as to advocate the complete professionalization of the ministry. There is little doubt, however, that this was his ultimate goal. The drive by various disciplines - medicine, law, religion - to professionalize in the mid and late nineteenth century has inspired a number of explanations among historians and social scientists as to the motivation behind, and the effects of, this broad re-structuring of society. Some have seen the process as an impulse of cultural reform which replaced ³false and pretentious claims to authority´ with new standards of plausibility rooted in

11 investigation and the accumulation of expertise.41 Others regard professionalization as a movement by these groups to secure their dominance in a highly competitive market place by restricting entrance into the profession and monopolizing a body of specialized knowledge.42 Another group has argued that professionalization transformed society from within, and replaced the hierarchical class system with a more open and accessible system based upon professional career hierarchies.43This view has in turn been challenged by historians who claim that professionalization did not supplant class relationships within modern society, but instead simply redefined the form that those relationships would take, and buttressed the hegemony of the ruling order.44 What all are agreed upon, however, is that the process of professionalization was well under way by mid century. There are five key characteristics that mark the process of professionalization. The first is a basis of systematic theory, such as a doctrine of belief and practice. The second characteristic is the development of a specialized authority recognized by the µclientele¶. This involves extensive indoctrination and education in the systematic theory and imparts to the professional a type of knowledge that highlight¶s his knowledge and importance. This is followed by the third characteristic, broader community sanction and approval of the professional¶s authority. The professional group must also have a code of ethics to regulate the profession. It must be explicit, binding, and systematic, and is designed to remove injurious internal competition for µclients¶. Finally, a professional culture is developed and sustained through a network of formal and informal groups and associations. The formal ones include organizations through which the profession performs its services, organizations which function to replenish the profession¶s supply of talent and expand its fund of knowledge, and those which promote the group¶s aims and interests. The informal associations are small, closely knit clusters of colleagues joined together by common interests such as specialties within the profession, ideological agreement, family ties, or residency. By 1858 the Free Christian Baptist reformers had succeeded in establishing a number of these criteria. The adoption of a Treatise of Faith and standardized Church Covenants all represented the beginnings of a systematic theology. Broader community sanction of the denomination¶s ministers had been achieved with the amendment of the law in 1849 to allow Free Christian Baptist ministers to perform marriages. The incorporation of the denomination in 1854 had also been a major step forward in this regard. A professional culture - both formal and informal - had been established, first with the creation of the General Conference itself, and then more specifically with the creation of a separate Elder¶s Conference composed of ordained Elders and licentiates in 1855. The Elder¶s Conference was given control over the discipline of its members, charged with promoting harmony in doctrine and practice, and given the authority to investigate the moral character of its members and adjudicate disputes between them.45 This was also tied in with the requirement to have a code of ethics regulating the profession, a characteristic at least partly satisfied with the adoption of a denominational Constitution and Rules for the General Conference and District Meetings.The fact that Hartt was the first Moderator of the

12 Elder¶s Conference, and McLeod it¶s first Secretary, indicates the early success of the reformers in establishing elements of the organizational end of their reform agenda. Two crucial components of professionalization were still missing, however. The denomination lacked an educational institution to train ministers, and thus buttress their position of importance vis-a-vis the layperson, and the Conference had not yet agreed to a Circuit system, which meant that the competition among ministers for µclients¶ continued largely unregulated. Just as it appeared that the reformers were taking major strides forward in rectifying this situation, however, the financial crisis of 1858-59 hit the Conference. The education proposals of 1858 quickly foundered. A school located in Saint John, on the intitiative of William Peters, and most likely to be under the control of the reformers, was an idea that proved impossible to implement in the wake of the revelations of financial mismanagement and the damage suffered to the reputations and credibility of the reformers, Peters in particular. The plan for a circuit system that the reformers presented in 1859, with its call for the Conference to appoint the salaries of every minister, also suffered from bad timing. The plan¶s requirement that every minister collect money from his circuit as mandated by the Conference was widely criticized. The reformers, it was believed, were trying to turn the Elders into little more than tax collectors. Worse, the plan contained a provision that ³every minister who comes to Conference minus the amount required of them of his circuit shall lose it out of his salary.´46 The populist ministers like Orser, Hartt, and Pennington, saw in this plan nothing less than the subsidization of the less popular, weaker ministers in the Conference. No matter how much they might be given by their congregations for good preaching, any amount in excess of the salary appointed by the Conference would have to be turned over to the Treasurer, to pay ministers who fell short. Preachers, they countered, were no longer to be paid on the basis of merit, a change intolerable to both many Elders and their congregations. For them, professionalization had gone far enough. To do any more would be to change completely the nature of the ministry, which traditionalists like Hartt would not accept. Thus, even though the reformers managed to get the circuit system accepted in 1860 after a contentious debate, it was neither as ambitious nor as successful as they had hoped, and it was discontinued in 1861 in the face of churches and Elders who simply ignored it.47 Exacerbating their problems was the fact that, despite having made some headway in lowering the debt, the Conference remained on shaky financial ground. These financial difficulties continued to hamper the work of the reformers, and led to dissension amongst the leaders.48 A rift developed between Peters and Underhill, who had taken the brunt of the blame for the financial crisis of the late 1850s, and McLeod. Part of the problem may have been McLeod¶s transfer to a pastorate in Fredericton in 1858, at the height of the financial crisis. In 1861 a committee was appointed by the Conference to visit the Church in Saint John and ³investigate and decide upon matters of difficulty between Brethren E. McLeod, B. J. Underhill, and Wm. Peters.´ The committee, headed by Merritt, met with the

13 church and reported back that it had ³effected peace between Brethren McLeod and Underhill,´ and that matters between Peters and McLeod had been left ³for them to talk over and settle between themselves.´49 Evidence exists, however, that the differences between the three of them were never completely reconciled.50 Another problem which confronted the reformers was the rapidly diminishing role of the layperson in the affairs of the denomination and the worship service. The creation of bureaucratic organizations within the Conference, such as the Sabbath School, temperance work, and in 1864 both a Foreign Missionary Society and a Home Missionary Society, showed that there remained broad support for moral and social reform, and for engaging in trans-denominational ventures. While the first officers of the Home Missionary Society were almost all reformers - Underhill was the President, Elders McLeod and Alexander Taylor were Vice Presidents, Daniel Clark was the Treasurer, Elder G.A. Hartley was the Corresponding Secretary, and Peters was the Recording Secretary - Samuel Hartt was elected the first President of the Foreign Missionary Society, and other traditionalists held key positions.51 Most important for the reformers, however, was the opportunity these organizations provided for laypersons to participate in aspects of the Church¶s mission, even as their traditional role in the worship service was disappearing, and their power over Church government was being subverted. Women in particular, to whom the worship service had long been an important outlet for self-expression, were encouraged to divert their attention and energy to these new societies. While no women were on the original executives of the two Missionary Societies, they were active annual members and contributors, one - Mary Ann Hartt of Oromocto was named a Life Member of the Foreign Missionary Society at the first annual meeting, highlighting the important role that women would play in the moral reform movement, especially missionary work, in the following years.52 For his part, Mcleod continued to champion various reform causes in the Religious Intelligencer, speaking out on issues such as debtors being sent to prison.53 The organizational reform of the denomination remained his primary focus, however. He continued to challenge traditional New Light beliefs on education and religious experience, and warned that: Wherever the idea prevails, that the first experience is the purest and highest type of Christian life; that progress in intellectual knowledge endangers piety; that the safest rule of action is impressions and feelings; and that that only is gospel which stirs the emotions, the saddest consequences are sure to follow.54 He decried the practice of ³impulses, occasions, sympathies and excitements´55 still adhered to by many Elders and congregations, and extolled instead the virtues of ³practical knowledge´.56The ³discipline of letters,´ he wrote, in combination with the

14 discipline of life, ³is of great utility [and] its neglect would be to recede from civilisation to barbarism.´57 He lamented the fact that to many in the denomination ³a meeting without a good share of excitement is no meeting at all,´ and that ³the plainest and most searching truths of the gospel forcibly, but calmly presented, give[s] no food to their souls.´58 For McLeod, only those feelings that were consistent with reason came from God. While he did not rule out sudden and dramatic conversions, they were far less important to him than the gradual conversion and Christian growth that had become the standard for mid-Victorian evangelicals.59 He persisted in his belief that education and the adoption of a systematic ministry were necessities for the denomination¶s continued success, and came close to suggesting that those who opposed these positions were lazy, shallow and insufficiently self-disciplined to accept them.60 Elder George A. Hartley, pastor of the church in the Carleton district of Saint John, a key reform ally of McLeod, and his successor as Corresponding Secretary of the Conference, reported to the annual Conference meeting in 1862 that ³one cause of weakness with many of our churches is a want of proper gospel labour and discipline.´ The reformers were aware that many churches managed to do without regular ministerial oversight, which undermined the clergy¶s claim to a specialized authority. Hartley made note of this state of affairs, and charged that while these churches could ³sustain their regular meetings and preserve their visibility without ministerial labour, yet do we believe they need the labours of those whom God has called to preach the Gospel, that they may prosper.´ He also accused traditionalist Elders of neglecting their duties. ³Judging by the course pursued by a number of them,´ he concluded, ³it is to be feared that some of Elders are becoming indifferent to the wants of our churches as well as to their high and holy calling.´ Hartley faulted his fellow Elders for ³covetousness [and] worldly-mindedness´, the result of their refusal to disengage themselves from ³secular affairs.´ In a veiled critique of traditionalist opposition to the organizational part of the reformers¶ agenda, Hartley told his fellow Elders that it was extremely important that ministers, rather than criticizing others, should ³nourish and strengthen the union that now exists amongst us.´61 Well aware, however, that complete unity was unlikely on contentious issues such as education, the reformers then successfully pushed a resolution through that replaced the long-standing requirement for a unanimous vote in all Conference, District, or church meetings. All that was now needed was a four-fifths vote. The reformers hoped that this change would make it easier for them to get the most controversial parts of their agenda education and a circuit system - passed, and would make it impossible for one or two traditionalist Elders to veto any resolution or proposal. The difficulties in achieving a consensus on a systematic organization of ministerial labour became even more apparent in 1863, however, with the presentation of a report by a committee composed of two reformers, Hartley and Alexander Taylor, and two traditionalists, Hartt and Pennington, who were appointed to study the problem. ³We may be permitted to say,´ they wrote, ³that we have found it very difficult to arrive at anything

15 definite at the present time.´ In a compromise that papered over their differences, they found that the circuit system would be the ³best plan´ to be adopted, but concluded that ³after consideration [we] have decided not to recommend it this year.´ Instead, they urged the churches to voluntarily engage a regular pastor, and recommended that the Conference send out one or two missionaries to help those churches ³who are not able to secure pastoral labour.´ The report was adopted unanimously. Although it did not accomplish anything of substance for the reformers, it was the best that they could do given the continued opposition of the traditionalists. Unhappy at the lack of progress in implementing key parts of their agenda, the reformers began to take a more directly confrontational approach. While David Bell is generally correct in his conclusion that McLeod never described the ³enemy´ by name in the Religious Intelligencer, his assertion that a reading of the Conference minutes ³gives no very refined sense´ of the nature or extent of popular resistance is inaccurate.62 In 1864 the reformers moved for the adoption of a Conference Committee to report each year on ministers not in attendance at Conference meetings. The committee, composed of McLeod and fellow reformers Edward Weyman and Joseph Noble, delivered a stinging rebuke directed at ministers who refused to attend the annual Conference without good excuse. They referred to the chief offenders by name. Traditionalists such as John MacKenzie, Thomas Conner, Elijah Sisson, and George Orser, were ³deserving of sharp rebuke,´ the committee concluded, as their absence ³is calculated to destroy our confidence in their attachment to the interests and prosperity of our body.´ These were the men, the committee charged, who ³express dissatisfaction at the doings of the body, and disaffect other brethren by their influence,´ doing harm to the denomination. In an unprecedented move they recommended that the Conference ³severely censure these brethren.´63 In fact, the absenteeism of these Elders made it easier for the reformers to get elected to the key leadership positions in the Conference. Nevertheless, their absence provided the reformers, directed by McLeod and Weyman, with an opportunity to launch a wellcalculated offensive designed to undermine the influence of key traditionalists by attacking them publicly for dereliction of duty. Even the popular Hartt came in for criticism for his part in a long-standing dispute at the Second Church in Wakefield. In the late 1850s members of that church had become embroiled in a property dispute which led to a spirit of dissension within the congregation.64 Hartt sought to resolve the dispute in the traditional manner, by referring it to a committee of church members appointed by the District Meeting, but he met with opposition from parties to the dispute who were unwilling to accept the intervention of either Hartt or the committee he proposed. As a result the recommendations of the committee were ignored. Hartt then attempted to enforce his own discipline on the church by circulating a paper which that read, in part: ³... all members of this Church... will submit ourselves... one to the other and anything that should occur among us either spiritual or

16 temporal matters that affect Disunion among us or burden or want of Confidence that it should be immediately looked after and any Brother or Sister that will not submit to them that have the rule over them in the Lord as we should all have care one for another shall be immediately removed from among us, and all that are among us now that will not submit themselves in the same manner we can no longer wlak with them in fellowship as Church members.´65 The methods that had served Hartt well in the 1830s were, however, no longer effective in the late 1850s. Some members of the congregation were no longer content to accept the mediation of Elders and Deacons in secular disputes. They wanted to separate spiritual matters from temporal, and to pursue a secular solution to a secular problem by utilizing the civil judicial system. When they would not submit to Hartt¶s authority and sign his ultimatum, they were removed from the church at Hartt¶s urging.66 The dismissed members refused to accept their expulsion from the church, however, and eventually, after more than three years of heated dispute, appealed to the General Conference for reinstatement. A Conference committee designated to report on the dispute concluded in 1863 that there had been much ³improper and unchristianlike´ behaviour on both sides of the dispute, and referred to Hartt by name. ³While we are willing to accord to Elder Hartt the intention and aim to labour for the best good of the people,´ the committee found, ³yet we cannot resist the conclusion that he has erred in judgment in acting amongst them,´ and that some of his actions were ³illegal [and] uncalled for.´67 The individuals removed from the church were reinstated, but the hard feelings remained, and ultimately led to a split in the congregation and the creation of a second church in the area. Two things emerged out of the difficulties within the Second Church in Wakefield. The first was an obvious personal setback for Hartt.68 More significant, however, was the confirmation that the episode provided for the reformers¶ belief in the need for a more professional ministry and a more organized and structured Church. The kind of free-lance disciplinary action and dispute resolution engaged in by Hartt was, to them, a symbol of everything that was wrong with the traditionalist method of conducting Church affairs. Instead of solving the problem, Hartt had only made matters worse, and contributed to the instability of the church. It was no coincidence that these difficulties for the traditionalists came to a head at the same time that the reformers were organizing the Missionary Societies to find new outlets for the energies of the Church members, and when they were intent upon re-opening the educational issue with the presentation of a major new paper on the question of a denominational school by E.C. Freeze. Freeze, a provincial school inspector, had for a number of years been active in promoting Sabbath Schools, and had been one of the most influential laypersons pressing for greater denominational interest in education. In his address to the Conference, he called for the creation of an Education Society that would

17 prepare a plan for building a denominational school, with a careful estimate of costs. Cognizant of the lingering suspicions of large-scale ventures among the Church membership, he was careful to point out that the venture would not proceed until sufficient funds had been raised through the selling of shares and provincial grants. ³Experience has shown,´ he told the Conference, ³that to depend upon the credit system to found such institutions, is equivalent to signing their death warrant.´ The Society was not to be officially affiliated with the Conference, and the denomination would not be responsible for its financial affairs, nor would it be liable for any of its debts. Freeze estimated that with concerted effort, a denominational school could be ready to begin operation by 1866. Freeze concluded his presentation by stating that: I have no faith in ignorance, neither do I suppose those have who are listening to me. I do not believe it fosters spiritual religion, or ever did, but, on the contrary, it is the mother of error - the handmaid of superstition and bigotry... If [there] is one subject more than another that should interest us, next to the religion of Christ, that subject is emphatically education. He asked that all members of the denomination support the plan with ³good will´ and ³hearty cooperation.´69 Although the reformers had been trying to stir up interest in, and support for, the cause of a denominational academy for years, their pleas for action had taken on a new degree of urgency by 1864. The reason was simple - young men were not joining the church in the same numbers as in the previous generation. The reformers were convinced that ³if the Free Baptists of these Provinces do not wish to lose their most promising young men, and have their best talent absorbed in other bodies, they must make provision for [their] education and training.´ Education, the reformers saw, was unavoidable. More and more it was a person¶s education, and not his inherited rank or even necessarily his occupation, which determined his status. Grave warnings were issued by the leaders of all major denominations, of the danger of downward mobility and loss of status to those who failed to seek education.70 If the Free Christian Baptists did not make provide training for their young men, they would go elsewhere to get it, where they would be ³tainted by principles´, according to Freeze, ³differing from those of their parents, if not diametrically opposed.´71 In particular, all of the denomination¶s best young candidates for the ministry, warned the reformers, would soon be preaching in Baptist or Methodist pulpits. The struggle with the Methodists for the winning of new converts is symbolic of the basis for the reformers¶ concerns. The Free Christian Baptists were overwhelmingly dwellers in rural areas, while the Methodists were strongest in urban areas. Because of the similarities between the two denominations both in doctrine and sensibility, there was an intense competition. The upper hand, at least in terms of overall numbers, had until the 1850s gone to the Free Christian Baptists, but as people began to move away from their farms

18 and into the towns and cities, there was a palpable fear that the balance could shift. Even in the denominational stronghold of Carleton County, the Methodists by 1871 slightly outnumbered the Free Christian Baptists in Woodstock, the county town.72It was believed that it would be especially difficult to attract converts among immigrants if the denomination could not offer them an µin house¶ opportunity to compete and advance in New Brunswick society. Simple itinerant preaching and revivalism, effective in the past, was no longer sufficient to attracting new converts. In the months after the 1864 annual meeting McLeod was cautioned by his brother-in-law Weyman not to press the issue too quickly. Both were aware that considerable opposition to education, and the overall plan to professionalize the ministry, remained. McLeod replied that ³I will not knowingly do wrong in this matter.´ He agreed that the subject could not be pressed too quickly, but maintained that ³it must be agitated and talked about.´ There was a tone of resignation in McLeod¶s writing which indicated his disappointment in the fact that, despite all of his success and good work over the previous fifteen years, he and the reformers had still not succeeded in overcoming the opposition of the traditionalists. ³There are some,´ he wrote, ³who will oppose [education] always - they will oppose anything that I am connected with.´ Gladly, he told Weyman, ³would I have stood back and let somebody else work this up, if they would, but I feel, my dear brother... that I have work to do for my people, and that this Educational matter is part of it.´ He then turned to the subject of the proposed Educational Society and reassured Weyman that the Conference would not be in any way financially responsible for its activities. He deplored the fact that ³some of our influential brethren who formerly favoured the idea [are] now spreading an influence against it.´ Nevertheless, he warned, the traditionalist leaders ³will injure themselves´ if they continued to oppose education. He concluded the letter with a realistic assessment of the changes taking place in society. They are ³moving and cannot be stopped,´ he wrote,´ and he will be crushed who does not move with it.´73 Over the next three years, however, McLeod , seemed to find renewed enthusiasm as he stepped up his efforts on behalf of promoting education and systematic organisation. The Educational Society was established in 1865, with reformers firmly in control, and McLeod proceeded to editorialize in favour of a circuit system and the need for regular pastoral care in his editorials in the Religious Intelligencer. He managed to get the Conference to replace much of the distinctive New Light terminology, such as µElders¶ and µmeeting houses¶, with more modern, generically evangelical appellations, such as µReverend¶ and µchurches¶.74 He also continued to warn against Catholic influence in society, encouraging people to support Protestants candidates over Catholics in various elections,75 and maintained a vigorous stance on issues of social and moral reform, such as the necessity for a more humane asylum system.76 Two factors provided renewed confidence and greater motivation. The first was the

19 optimism he and other reformers felt at the prospect of Confederation. Of all the religious denominations in New Brunswick, none was as supportive of Confederation as the Free Christian Baptists. In part it stemmed from the continued association of the reformers with Tilley, cemented even further with McLeod¶s move to Fredericton in the early 1860s. Both McLeod and Hartley filled the pages of the Religious Intelligencer with pro-Confederation articles and editorials, and kept their readers abreast of developments by publishing extracts from debates and proposals. They believed that Confederation would bring an influx of money into New Brunswick, and that an inter-colonial railroad would ³quicken all the pulses of trade and industry in the country.´ Agricultural and industrial production would rapidly increase, they wrote, and the people of New Brunswick could ³justly anticipate a great development of manufacturing energy [and] we shall be able to compete favourably with our American cousins in every foreign market throughout the world.´ Most significant, union with Ontario, they believed, would vastly improve the common school system in New Brunswick: The common school system of Canada West is one of the very best on earth. Connection with that prosperous and rapidly advancing Province will soon tell favourably upon our educational enterprises. We shall not long remain content to lag behind other portions of the Confederacy in such a vital matter as general education.77 The new country would be a Christian nation led by ³God fearing men´ with ³Christian hearts´ whose ³moral character is above suspicion,´ and who were ³loyal... lovers of Britain, her laws, her freedom and her institutions.´78 Never, editorialized Hartley, ³did we see so bright a day, nor so prosperous a future as at present.´ The ³blessing of God´, as far as the reformers were concerned, was clearly upon the new Dominion.79 It was an indication of the divine nature of material progress. The second reason for renewed effort was the sudden influx of a sizeable group of young ministers and licentiates. ³The large number of Licentiates which have been recommended to this Conference by the Churches and District Meetings,´ McLeod reported in 1866, ³is a promising feature of our present history.´80 To McLeod, this factor was interconnected with the approach of Confederation. The traditionalists were growing older, he realized, and when they passed away it would be these young licentiates who would become ³the leaders and fathers of the denomination.´ As the country was to be reborn and strengthened, so was the denomination. McLeod stressed that the coming age of the ³Great British American Confederation´ would end New Brunswick¶s isolation and lead to an increase in population, wealth, intelligence, and social improvement. The province would become an integral part of an expanding country of opportunity, with a prosperous and educated populace numbering in the millions. He urged the young licentiates and ministers to ³remember that much study, much experience, and a constant and unreserved consecration to their work´ would be necessary to maintain the usefulness of the denomination in such a society.81 It was upon these young men that McLeod was placing

20 his hopes for the future progress of the denomination. He was confident that the old ways which had caused the reformers so many problems would die out with the passing of the elderly traditionalists. McLeod identified three characteristics that were essential for young men entering into the ministry. First, they needed an ³amount of common sense sufficient to endow them with a deep sense of sobriety, discretion, and a deep sense of the importance, necessity, and value of intellectual and moral culture.´ Second, they had to have a ³deep earnest piety´ and had to be ready to serve as ministers ³at any sacrifice.´ They also had to be free of ³selfish ambition [and] personal jealousies.´ Finally, wrote McLeod, they ³should be men of more than average literary attainment,´ well read in ³history and general literature´, with minds ³adapted to study´. They must also be, he concluded, ³men of respectable culture, gentlemanly in their habits and address.´82 To McLeod and the reformers, concepts such as respectability, culture, moral and literary attainment, and common sense had become as important as piety, the sole traditional requirement for a minister. He noted with approval that more ³young men of our denomination are now students´ at the University of New Brunswick and various seminaries and schools throughout the province, where they ³are acquitting themselves in their studies with much honor.´83 McLeod took every opportunity to visit and travel with these young men, and he liked what he saw in them. Of Rev. George McDonald, for example, who had been ordained in 1866 and was the pastor of the churches in Upper Gagetown and Oromocto, McLeod wrote: [He is] our esteemed and worthy young brother... whose piety as a christian, and whose ability as a preacher, have few equals in any religious body in this province... [he] preached a telling sermon on the nature and power of the Gospel, and the duty of the Church to spread it...84 Rev. John Reud, who grew up with McDonald in the Grand Manan area, far away from the traditionalist stronghold of Carleton County, had also been ordained in 1866. Both had been converted together under Rev. Joshua Barnes, a reform minded minister who had himself been converted by McLeod in 1851.85 Even more than McDonald, who had been a fisherman prior to entering upon his work in the ministry, Reud, a teacher, was the kind of educated young man that McLeod believed was finally being attracted to the ministry.86 McLeod¶s own son, Joseph, had also joined this group of promising young men who had come of age in the era of progress, not the frontier wilderness of the traditionalists, and were thus more ready to embrace and adapt to change. They were men, he believed, who would devote themselves to the work of the ministry, and become ³devoted and efficient´ pastors, not undisciplined evangelists.87 When these factors were taken into consideration, McLeod wrote, ³we fail to perceive the wisdom or the truthfulness of the idea that the former days were better than these.´88

21 The reformers believed that in this bright future there was still much work to be done. The temperance committee at the 1866 annual meeting reported that while there were fewer ³drunkards´ in society, there were growing numbers of ³moderate drinkers´ who set bad examples for children, and who invariably came to ruin.89 The report of the committee on the Sabbath gave the first hint of an awareness of the growing debates over evolution and the historical criticism of the Bible when they observed that ³this [is a] day of struggle for the truth, when men of powerful minds are striving to overturn our holy religion.´90 Everyone, wrote Rev. J.T. Parsons, a younger minister and a reformer, must realize that ³work is the patrimony of the Christian.´ He reminded the members of the denomination that ³this is the toiling season,´ and urged all men, women, and children to rise to the ³duties and dignity of our Christian calling´ and ³strive to make the world better by our living in it.´ It was, he said, ³a holy mission.´91 Laypersons like George Boyer of Wakefield, who came to the 1866 annual Conference meeting and donated $1000 for the Conference to invest, and then returned the next year with another $1000, were recognized with ³deep emotions of gratitude´ and held up to the denomination as exemplars of the ³goodness of Almighty God.´92 Material prosperity was only a blessing, the reformers reminded the denomination, when turned to the higher purposes of God.93 The year 1867 was more of a turning point, however, than the reformers had imagined. In January, Samuel Hartt died after a lingering illness.94 His loss was deeply felt throughout the denomination, and despite his differences with the reformers, he was still affectionately viewed as the father of the denomination. McLeod wrote that ³however much any might differ from him in sentiment, or in some practical points, none, who were really acquainted with him, could doubt but he was a sincere lover of the Saviour.´95 He had consistently supported moral reform efforts, missionary work, and other aspects of the reform agenda, even though he was opposed to greater professionalization of the ministry, and clung tenaciously to the itinerant evangelism that he had employed from the beginning of his career as a preacher.96 While his methods were not those that the reformers believed were necessary to consolidate the Church¶s position, nobody disputed Hartt¶s abilities as a ³gatherer´ and a leader. As Joseph McLeod later noted, Hartt probably did more to mould the religious beliefs of the people in the counties along the Saint John River than any other person.97 Still, the reformers, while they genuinely regretted his passing, could not help but think that his death marked the end of the era of the traditionalists. Hartt¶s stature and influence had been so widespread that he was capable of acting as a bulwark against change. Other traditionalists, such as Pennington, Sisson, McMullin Orser, and Ezekiel Sipprell, while possessed of strong local followings in Carleton and Victoria Counties, were not seen by the reformers as influential enough to take Hartt¶s place. In the kind of symbiotic irony that history often produces, however, the reformers lost their

22 own leader two months later when McLeod died at the relatively young age of fifty-four. Three years earlier he had written Weyman that ³I feel, my dear brother, that I have not long to live,´98 a sign that the pressures of leading the reformer movement, publishing a paper, and attending to regular pastoral duties had begun to take its toll on him.99 If the loss of Hartt removed one of the key traditionalist opponents to the education and organizational aspects of the reformers¶ agenda, McLeod¶s death deprived the reform movement of its founder and unquestioned leader. The reaction from fellow reformers was one of palpable dismay. Barnes later recalled that ³it did appear as though we could not possibly part with him.´100 Hartley mourned the deaths of both Hartt and McLeod in his annual report as Corresponding Secretary in 1867. Whereas he referred to Hartt as ³venerable and highly esteemed´ and spoke of his work in ³raising up the denomination,´ however, his comments with regard to McLeod were more immediate. He was, wrote Hartley, ³vigorous, hard-working, and beloved,´ and ³occupied a sphere of wide-spread usefulness.´ In his death ³our entire denominational interests have lost a strong and devoted workman´ who, ³by his superior talents and distinguished consecration, laboured so successfully for the good of the denomination.´101 Weyman was worried about what 102 would happen to the Religious Intelligencer without McLeod to act as editor. As with Hartt and the traditionalists, there was nobody with the connections, influence and proven ability that immediately stood out as a ready successor to McLeod as leader of the reform movement. Weyman was a possibility in the short term, but like the remaining traditionalists he came from the older generation, and at the age of sixty-seven was more suited to act as an advisor to the younger reformers. There were a number of other senior ministers of McLeod¶s generation who favoured most or all aspects of the reform agenda, such as Joseph Noble, William Kinghorn, Alexander Taylor, and Benjamin Merritt, but they were best suited by either temperment or circumstance to a supporting role. A long-term outlook required a younger man. The most likely candidate, on the surface, appeared to be Hartley. He was only thirty-six, had experience with the Religious Intelligencer, was located in Saint John, was the son-in-law of long-time reformer Daniel Clark,103 and had held a number of key positions in the Conference, including Corresponding Secretary and Moderator. It was McLeod¶s son Joseph, the ambitious twenty-three year old licentiate from Fredericton to whom the Religious Intelligencer had been left, who emerged, with the support of influential relatives like Weyman, to take his father¶s place as the most vocal and active advocate of reform. He and other young ministers, such as George McDonald, John Reud, Joseph Parsons, Caleb Phillips, and Hartley, all under forty, were set to fill important roles in the reform movement. It was a movement that by the time of McLeod¶s death in 1867 placed a high value on social and political respectability, and was thoroughly committed to the interdenominational consensus of mainstream mid-Victorian evangelicalism. McLeod had sought to redefine the untempered revivalism of the denomination¶s New Light past into a more moderate and controlled style of worship which would appeal to the growing middle class. He moved

23 away from the New Light emphasis on sudden, emotional conversion and promoted in its place the view that salvation was a gradual process which involved both the emotion and the intellect. He believed that in order to sustain and cultivate the spiritual growth of the regenerate individual required a more formalized and structured institutional framework. This necessitated the creation of a professionalised and educated ministry, and the adoption of various moral and social reform agencies to nurture Christian growth. Just as important, these agencies would transfer the focus of the laity from emotional participation in the worship service to more respectable activities - like temperance, mission work, and Sunday Schools - that would aid in the regeneration of both the individual and society. Through all of this he sought to relate Christianity to the evidence of social and material progress he saw all around him, determined to prevent his denomination from being ³crushed´ by the forces of change.104 Despite his death, McLeod¶s fellow reformers looked back upon their accomplishments in 1867 with a fair measure of satisfaction, and faced the future with confidence and the belief that those elements of their agenda that had not yet been realized would take firm root in the decade of prosperity that they saw ahead of them. Waiting in the wings, however, was McLeod¶s old adversary George Orser, who looked to the young ministers of the Conference and saw not potential reformers, but a new cadre of evangelists that he could lead in a rebirth of traditional New Light values and practice. ³We want,´ wrote Hartley in 1867, echoing McLeod¶s hopes, ³intelligent, pious, educated young men who will come to the work [of] the sacred office of the Gospel ministry.´105 Orser had a different type of young man in mind, and a different plan for the future of the denomination, as he set about to win the hearts and souls of the next generation.

24

1

1. Barry Moody, ³Breadth of Vision, Breadth of Mind: The Baptists and Acadia College´, in G.A. Rawlyk, ed., Canadian Baptists and Christian Higher Education (Montreal: McGill-Queen¶s University Press, 1988), 10. 2. James Beverley and Barry Moody, eds., The Journal of the Rev. Henry Alline (Hantsport, Nova Scotia: Lancelot Press, 1982), 73-74. 3. Ibid., 72. 4. Clark, ibid., 252. 5. Moody, ibid., 9. 6. Clark, ibid. 7. Moody, ibid., 14-15. 8. Doreen M. Rosman, Evangelicals and Culture (Beckenham, United Kingdom: Croom Helm Limited, 1984), 213-214. 9. Christian Messenger, 12 March 1841, 74. 10. Margaret Conrad, ³µAn Abiding Conviction of the Paramount Importance of Christian Education:¶ Theodore Harding Rand as Educator, 1860-1900" in Wilson, ibid., 156-157. 11. Saunders, ibid., 232 12. Minutes of New Brunswick Baptist Association (1833) 13. C.F. Allison to William Temple, 4 June 1839, Records of the Wesleyan Methodist Missionary Society (incoming), reel 22. 14. Goldwin French, ³Methodism and Education in the Atlantic Provinces, 1800-1874" in Scobie and Grant, ibid., 161-162. The Methodist press editorialized, for example, that the ³real substantial prosperity´ of the people ³mainly depends [on their] intelligence and religious character,´ and that education was a necessity to ³fit its possessors for stations of responsibility on earth, and for their higher destiny in another world.´ However, they emphasized that for education to be effective, it had to be linked to ³religious and moral principle´; The Provincial Wesleyan, 19 January 1854. 15. Frances Beavan, Life in the Backwoods of New Brunswick (London: George Routledge, 1845), 60-64.

25 16. The committee on Sabbath schools at the 1853 General Conference meeting, headed by McLeod, wrote that the existence of Sabbath schools ³is identified with the prosperity of the Churches´, that they were important in the ³great work´ of ³early religious training´ for children, and that ³in some instances a more healthy religious influence has followed the introduction of these Schools´; Minutes (1853), 6. 17. David Hempton, Methodism and Politics in British Society, 1750-1850 (Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1984), 88-89. 18. Lemuel Wilmot, a leading Methodist and one of the first reformers and advocates of responsible government in the New Brunswick Assembly, supported a bill in 1846 to provide for a proper training school for the education of teachers. In speaking in favour of the bill in the legislature, Wilmot concluded that ³the greatest difficulty which has been encountered to render the provisions of the bill effective in promoting a better system of education in the parish schools... [is] the apathy of the parents themselves.´ He told a story of how in one community an individual had offered to pay for the construction of a school if the community would get out a frame and provide the boards, which they failed to do. Even when another man offered to provide the boards if members of the community would go and bring them from a neighbouring mill, ³there was no one who felt interest enough in the education of their children to go and bring them to the spot - and to this day the frame stands, as it did then, a melancholy monument of the dreadful apathy which is sometimes to be found even in this comparatively intelligent county.´ Quoted in James Hannay, Wilmot and Tilley (Toronto: Morang & Company Limited, 1910), 8990. 19. An observer of New Brunswick in the 1850s wrote that the practice of sending children to school at irregular intervals, where ³for one month they send two or three, for the next month none, and for the month after, one´ was widespread. It was, he concluded, a ³plan as ruinous to the advancement of the education of the children, as it is unfair to the laws by which it is regulated, and unjust and prejudicial to the teachers.´ Whatever time, he continued, ³parents can afford to send their children to school, should be continuous and unbroken; for it cannot be expected that children will learn, unless endowed with miraculous powers, when they are only allowed to attend school for three, four or five weeks at a time, with an interval of five or six months of neglect.´ Alexander Monro, New Brunswick, With a Brief Outline of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island (Halifax:: Richard Nugent, 1855), 250-251. 20. Wallace, ibid. 7-12. 21. Ibid., 10. 22. The rate in 1833 was L20 per annum for male teachers and L10 for female teachers. The rates increased significantly over the next twenty years, but were still very low. In 1854 the highest paid male teacher was making L37.10, while the highest paid female made L27.10. The lowest paid teachers made L22.10 and L17.10, respectively.

26 23. Hannay, ibid., 83-85. 24. Quoted in Hannay, ibid., 90-91. 25. Minutes (1855), 8-9. 26. Minutes (1856), 16-17; William Westfall, Two Worlds: The Protestant Culture of NineteenthCentury Ontario (Montreal: McGill-Queen¶s University Press, 1989), 6-7. 27. Minutes (1856), ibid. 28. Alison Prentice, The School Promoters: Education and Social Class in Mid-Nineteenth Century Upper Canada (Toronto: McLelland and Stewart, 1977), 88-90. 29. Minutes (1856), 18. 30. Ibid. 31. Ibid., 17-18. 32. Westfall, 7. The report of the Committee on the Sabbath in 1856 clearly evidenced these concerns. ³The violation of the Lord¶s-day by the children of Christian parents,´ the committee warned, ³ is an evil of great extent; and of many parents it may be said as it was of Eli, - µhis sons made themselves vile, and he restrained them not.¶ Sabbath-breaking and parental disobedience go hand-in-hand, and are generally the first steps in viciousness and crime.´ Minutes (1856), 19. The committee was comprised of two senior Elders, Hartt and McMullin, and other traditionalist Elders Ezekiel Sipprell and Robert French. It also included a number of younger licentiates from rural areas, all future Elders, none of whom were identified with the reformers. 33. Minutes (1856), 18. Slipp was one of the three delegates, along with Clark and William Peters, from the Fifth District, which included Saint John. This was where the influence of reform Elders like McLeod and Noble was the most secure. Slipp was certainly sympathetic to the reformers, having been an early supporter of McLeod and the Religious Intelligencer; Taylor, Reminiscences of my Early Life and my Religious Experiences, ibid., 19. 34. New Brunswick House of Assembly, Journals (1858), 203 35. Ibid. 36. Carl Murray Wallace, ³Sir Leonard Tilley: A Political Biography´ (PhD Thesis, University of Alberta, 1972), 115. 37. New Brunswick House of Assembly, Debates (22 March, 1858), 64. 38. Religious Intelligencer, 1 January 1858, 2.

27 39. Ibid. 40. Minutes (1858), 18. 41. Thomas J. Haskell, The Emergence of Professional Social Science (Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1977); William G. Rothstein, American Physicians in the 19th Century: From Sects to Science (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1972). 42. Ronald Hamowy, Canadian Medicine: A Study in Restricted Entry (Vancouver: Fraser Institute, 1984) 43. Harold Perkin, The Rise of Professional Society: England Since 1880 (London: Routledge, 1989); and Harold Perkin, The Origins of Modern English Society, 1780-1880 (London: Routledge, Chapman & Hall, 1969). 44. Colin Howell, ³Medical Professionalization and the Social Transformation of the Maritimes, 1850-1950," Journal of Canadian Studies Vol. 27, No. 1 (Spring 1992), 5-20. 45. Minutes (1855), 33.The preamble of the Elder¶s Conference Constitution indicated the exaltation of the ministerial office and the sentiment in favour of professional organizations. ³Whereas,´ it stated, ³we believe the agreement of all associations of men is necessary in order to their efficiency in whatever work they are engaged; and whereas the ministry of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, viewed in its relation to the eternal interest of mankind, is the most important office on earth, hence those who engage in the sacred calling should seek every means for their purity and unite.´ 46. Minutes (1859), 16. 47. As Elder G.A. Hartley euphemistically put it in his report to the 1861 Conference as Corresponding Secretary, ³In some cases the change made by the Circuit Appointments have been satisfactory, in others it has not been so.´ Later in his report he was more candid, noting that ³Some of our Churches are in a very low state [and] in some, trials exist that threaten sad consequences.´ Minutes (1861), 5-7. 48. Ibid., 7. ³Of the things that burden and impede our progress,´ wrote Hartley, ³perhaps none is more generally felt than our financial embarrassment. This debt has been hanging so long, and so many appeals have been made to our people, that it seems to be getting more and more dreaded.´ 49. Minutes (1862), 18. 50. Letter of Joseph McLeod to Edward Weyman, 13 December 1872. ³I see you have been informed that I did not call on Bro. Underhill when he was in Fredericton,´ wrote McLeod, ³& further that the reason I did not was because of the old grievance between him and my father. I have heard it before...´ McLeod assured Weyman that his not calling on Underhill was accidental,

28 and urged him to ³believe me when I say that I have not harboured a particle of emnity against Bro. Underhill.´ Nevertheless, the rumours that continued to have currency seem to indicate that the problems between Underhill and Ezekiel McLeod were never completely resolved. 51. Charles McMullin was a Vice President, and William Pennington was a member of the Executive and a life member of the Society. 52. For a more comprehensive study of the role played by women in nineteenth-century evangelicalism, see Leonard I. Sweet, The Minister¶s Wife: Her Role in Nineteenth-Century American Evangelicalism (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1983). 53. Religious Intelligencer, 6 February 1863. McLeod wrote that it ³is unchristian, cruel, and barbarous to drag the poor and honest, but unfortunate husband and father from the household and family depending upon him for support, and shut him up with bolts and bars in solitude and idleness, because he is unable to pay a debt he would gladly pay if he could... He has perpetrated no crime against morals, his misfortune is no guilt, and he needs compassion and sympathy rather than punishment.´ 54. Religious Intelligencer, 26 June 1863. 55. Religious Intelligencer, 3 June 1864. 56. Religious Intelligencer, 27 January 1863. 57. Ibid. 58. Religious Intelligencer, 3 June 1864. 59. Westfall, ibid., 76-77. 60. Bell, 68. 61. Minutes (1862), 9-10. 62. Bell, ³The Allinite Tradition and the New Brunswick Free Christian Baptists, 1830-1875", ibid., 69. 63. Minutes (1864), 12. 64. The church records, for example, show that on 8 October 1859 ³about 30 members of the Church met together and all reported by speaking. [A] diversity of feeling [was] professed and a great lack of union expressed, in the meeting´; Third Tier Jacksontown Church Book, 1843-1903 (Atlantic Baptist Collection, Acadia University). 65. Ibid., 12 November 1859.

29 66. Ibid., 12 December 1859. The church members removed from the congregation were John Dewitt, John Mallory, James York, William Mallory, and Josiah Mallory. 67. Minutes (1864), 15. 68. Weyman later recalled that Hartt experienced ³some heavy tryals [sic] in some of the churches´ which undermined his influence throughout the 1860s; Weyman, ibid., 11. 69. Ibid., 52-55. 70. Prentice, ibid., 113-114. 71. Minutes (1864), 53. 72. T.W. Acheson, ³The Problem of Methodist Identity in Nineteenth Century New Brunswick,´ in Scobie and Grant, ibid., 112-113. Only rarely, notes Acheson, were large numbers of Methodists and Free Christian Baptists found in the same communities. 73. Letter from McLeod to Weyman, 16 November 1864 [Weyman Papers, Atlantic Baptist Collection, Acadia University]. 74. His editorial on the necessity of referring to places of worship as ³churches´ in the February 13, 1863 issue of the Religious Intelligencer is a good example. 75. In the May 8, 1863 issue of the Religious Intelligencer, McLeod congratulated the citizens of Saint John on their rejection of the Catholic candidate for mayor and their strong turnout in favour of the Protestant victor, I. Woodward. 76. Religious Intelligencer, 11 January 1867. 77. Religious Intelligencer, 26 April 1867 78. Religious Intelligencer, 14 June 1867. John Grant has observed that Canadian Protestants seldom distinguished patriotism sharply from religion; The Church in the Canadian Era: The First Century of Confederation (Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson Limited, 1972), 25. 79. Religious Intelligencer, 5 April 1867. 80. Minutes (1866), 7. 81. Ibid. 82. Religious Intelligencer, 29 June 1866. 83. Ibid., 8.

30 84. Religious Intelligencer, 8 March 1867. McLeod had taken to making annual two or three week tours where he would visit different areas of the province and, in effect, network with these young ministers and licentiates. 85. Barnes recorded that ³Brother McLeod shed a greater influence over my spiritual life than any other minister. It may truly be said that he laid the foundation of my Christian experience´; Joshua Barnes, Lights and Shadows of Eighty Years: An Autobiography (Saint John: Barnes & Company Limited, 1911), 47-49, 72. 86. Barnes, ibid., 48; obituary of Rev. G.W. MacDonald, The King¶s Highway, 31 March 1895. 87. Minutes (1866), 6. 88. Ibid., 7. 89. Ibid., 12-13. 90. Ibid., 13. 91. Ibid., 15-16. 92. Ibid., 18-19; Minutes (1867), 11. The fact that Boyer donated the money for use in such reform sponsored enterprises as the Educational Society, of which he was Treasurer, and the Foreign Missionary Society, of which he was a member of the executive committee, was especially heartening to the reformers. 93. John Webster Grant, A Profusion of Spires: Religion in Nineteenth-Century Ontario (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1988), 112. 94. Edward Weyman recorded that ³toward the close of his life [Hartt] became infebled... by a very heavy sickness on the Pedicodiac River (Inflamatory Rumatism) which broke him down very much [sic]´; Weyman, ibid., 11. 95. Religious Intelligencer, 1 February 1867. 96. Barnes, ibid., 72. ³He remained true,´ wrote Barnes, ³to his principles until death.´ 80. McLeod, ibid., 418. 98. McLeod to Weyman, ibid. 99. His son wrote that ³much labour hastened his death´; McLeod, ibid., 420. 100. Barnes, ibid., 72.

31 101. Minutes (1867), 5. 102. Weyman, ibid., 17. 103. Burnett, Frederick C., Biographical Directory of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick Free Baptist Ministers and Preahers (Hantsport, Nova Scotia: Lancelot Press, 1996), 77. 104. Westfall, ibid., chapters 5 and 6. 105. Minutes (1867), 8-9.