The National Magazine. JULY, 1855. EDITORIAL CORRESPONDENCE. LETTER TO BISHOP SIMPSON. STATE OF OPINION IN THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH RESPECTING ITS ECONOMY-REFORMS DEMANDED-WHAT ARE THEY?-THE PRESIDING ELDERSHIP ITS CAPACITY-TERM OF MINISTERIAL APPOINTMENTS OBJECTIONS TO AN INDEFINITE TERM-ADVANTAGE OF THE ITINERANCY TO MEN OF TALENTS-How SHOULD THE CHURCH TREAT THE DEMAND FOR "REFORMS?"-PROSCRIPTION: ITS BAD EFFECT ON THE MORALE OF THE CHURCH-REAL BASIS OF THE SYSTEM-LONGER TERM OF APPOINTMENT-LAY REPRESENTATION — THE ONLY TRUE BASIS OF IT. Reverend and DEAR SIR,-In a former letter I alluded to the discussions, in this vicinity, respecting the Methodist polity, and showed that the supposition which gave rise to the debate, viz., that Methodism is declining in our large cities, is fallacious. The discussion has lately been transferred from this false ground to more general, and therefore more reasonable ones, and I wish, in the present letter, to review the subject in its general aspects, giving you the results of the observations made upon it in my late travels through the Church. should be said, drove a large proportion of our leading laymen-some of the very best men in the Church-into closer sympathy than ever with the peculiarities of our system, and it is quite clear that no revolutionary or schismatic measures of "reform" can be effected there, however general may be the disposition of the Philadelphia laymen for some modifications of our economy. I give it as my opinion that such a disposition is, with this qualification, more extensive in Philadelphia than the Church generally supposes. The issue of the late movement there may have led to a wrong inference elsewhere. In New-York, Brooklyn, and the neighboring Churches, the "reform " sentiment is still more common. Special causes have given it force within a couple of years. I have been surprised at its prevalence among our most responsible laymen. They are loyal to Methodismthey love especially its theology-it would not be easy for any man, however influential, to disturb the tranquillity of the Churches by open measures of insubordination; but I think I do not mistake in saying that there is among them a very general feeling that some changes ought to be made in our ecclesiastical scheme-what they should be seems not clearly defined in most minds-some propose one thing, some another; but the vague idea seems to be, that as Methodism has now attained such dominant importance in the larger communities, with such large material interests and financial responsibilities, the individual Churches-the laymen in other I can throw my remarks together best, per-words-should have more to do with its general haps, in answers to three questions: What is the state of opinion generally in the Church on the subject? What are the specific points of reform most demanded? How can we best treat the demand? What is the general state of opinion in the Church on the subject? The Church is generally at peace respecting it. That is unquestionable. Throughout the West, except, perhaps, in the principal cities of the North-west, there can be found little or no disposition to sanction any important changes in our economy. The most militant plans of Methodism are seen to be as necessary there still, as they were in the Eastern States in the earlier history of the denomination; and one of the causes of the love of Western men for Methodism is its thorough militant characteristics-the heroism of its selfsacrifice, the rigor and energy of its regimen, whether among preachers or laymen. In the great cities along the lakes, there are, however, every where to be found leading laymen, who earnestly hope for economical changes in the Church. I have found much frankness among them in the expression of this sentiment. In the larger communities east of the lakes and of the Ohio the sentiment is much more rife. I do not hesitate to say that, whether for good or for evil, it prevails among a very considerable majority of the most intelligent and responsible of our laymen in the Atlantic, and also the interior cis-Alleghany cities. In Baltimore there is very little said on the subject-the disasters of a quarter of a century ago are still remembered. In Philadelphia, indications about the time of the last General Conference will be recalled by you. These indications, however, it management. I make here no comment on these opinions-that will be appropriate hereafter-I wish now only to get at a clear statement of the actual state of opinion, in order to make the more relevant comments in the right place. These "reformatory" opinions have had, as I have heretofore intimated, a remarkable manifestation among our brethren of the ministry in this section, at their Monday morning Preachers' Meeting. It is not too much, perhaps, to say that a majority—a majority by far-of the most commanding minds in our ministerial corps hereabouts have avowed them. The avowal has been so peremptory, that I suppose it would hardly be considered indiscreet for me to name some of them as a proof of the importance which now really attaches to the controversy; I shall not run that risk, however; it must suffice to say that the Monday morning debates at the Mission Rooms, for some months, have revealed a state of opinion among an important class of our ministry, respecting the economy of the Church, such as would take the Church, as it has taken your correspondent, wholly by surprise. Other meetings, likewise, for consultation with laymen, have been held; but as I have not personally participated in the discussions, either at the Preachers' Meeting or elsewhere, and have been able to be but once or twice present at the former, I am not able to speak of their results. In respect to the large and substantial section of the denomination, which lies within the New-England States-the most advanced, in all material interests, such as churches, literary institutions, and finances, of our whole eccle There are siastical domain-I may venture to speak with I am aware that such general estimates of a public sentiment cannot take into account individual and local qualifications, and may therefore be open to strong dissent from certain quarters; but I believe that brethren who have had a large opportunity, as I think I have had myself, of ascertaining the actual state of the Church will hesitate not to pronounce this view about correct. When we consider the relation of Methodism to the moral interests of the country-that it not only numerically leads the van of the Protestantism of the nation, but, as we think, has a special responsibility for the vitality and power of religion through the land-no Methodist, no Christian whatever, can contemplate its prospects, in this or any other respect, without prayerful solicitude that no perilous event may overtake its hitherto triumphant march. The impressions I have received, in my travels over its territory, have not been discouraging. I have come to about the following inferences from these impressions : First. That the sentiment of loyalty to our cause is unabated, and that the alienations from our membership are comparatively fewer than they used to be when our social position was less elevated among the sects of the country. Second. That the "reforms" discussed among us, are proposed from a loyal conviction that they would eventually promote, rather than revolutionize, the essential peculiarities of our system. Third. That the people would, almost en masse, vote down any changes which should manifestly endanger the essential attributes of the system-choosing rather to endure local incon veniences from it than to impair its denominational efficiency. Fourth. That no general outbreaks or agitations are probable, if even possible, hereafter among us, in matters of ecclesiastical economy, provided that nothing more questionable than our present system presents, is incorporated into it, (a danger which is hardly possible, as all our tendencies have been for years, and, in the nature of things, must hereafter be otherwise,) and provided, especially, they are not produced by heedless attempts on the part of the organs of the Church to fight down the frank but loyal expression of opinion on such matters. Fifth. That the greatest evil we need fear from these "reformatory" sentiments and discussions, is the feeling of precariousness which they may produce respecting the future of the Church-the great interests now growing up within it-its colleges and academies, its A better expensive chapels and parsonages. sense of the settlement of our economy would produce more settled confidence and larger re sources. Sixth. That our safety is chiefly with the authorities of the Church-the frankness and confidence with which they shall treat its public opinion. Most of the changes suggested are such as a wholesome progressive legislation need not be afraid of; they can either be adopted, or the reasons against their adoption be so explained as to meet the loyal sentiments of the people. Our chief danger is from our fears. We make difficulties dangers by exaggerating their importance. The outcry about perils ahead, confounds the self-possession of good men, and drives them upon the rocks. Let us not croak, whatever else we do; the Lord is with the Church, and there is good sense and piety with the people. If a steady hand is kept on the helm, the winds will only help the ship along her destined way. I come now to state, more particularly, some of the changes which are demanded, preparatory to an answer to the question how the demand should be treated? The peculiarity of our system most in questhe Presiding Elder tion, just now, I think, ship, and it is beset with peculiar difficulties. The uniformity, if not the unity, of the Church seems to be in the way of any important change respecting this office. Throughout the West it is unquestionably still indispensable. It is indispensable, I doubt not, in at least three-fourths of our territory. Yet where it is not apparently so necessary, it is often heedlessly assailed as if the economy of the Church were a matter of mere local discretion-as if, in fact, the general consequences, which legislators consider the highest test of wise institutions, and some moralists the highest criterion of ethical right, had nothing to do with the question. Few things look worse for our loyalty to our common cause, than the indisposition to suffer local inconveniences, (and they are usually but financial ones,) rather than risk the general good. The practical question should be, whether the general necessity for this office could not be harmonized with local modifications of it but of this more in the right place. Meanwhile, as a masterly agency of the Church, let us speak worthily of it, and maintain its integrity and moral power. I hesitate not to say that there is no other function of our system, not even yours, sir, which has an equal capacity for usefulness. The Presiding Elder, traversing his district, urging forward the great interests of its Churches-discussing them in his sermons-calling out recruits for the ministry-directing the studies and molding the character of his young men-projecting new churches-adjusting local troubles-representing in his person the unity, and promoting the esprit de corps of the cause, and stimulating it by a commanding official influence-what officer have we who has an equally effective power? This is the office-but where is the officer? "There's the rub." No man in his senses can deny the potential capacity of the office, but its very capacity exposes it to unfortunate criticism by the incapability of its incumbent. Our wretched policy, in the appointment of Presiding Elders, has nearly despoiled the office of its importance in some of the Atlantic Statesand the appointing power, whether in the Episcopacy or the cabinet, may hold itself responsible for much of the "radicalism" which prevails among us respecting it. We are redeeming ourselves of late years, I hope, in this respect. Perhaps, too, there is an apology, in part, for the evil; the fact is, our cause has grown so fast that it is almost impossible to meet some of its necessities. We have much talent; no American denomination, I soberly believe, has more; but we have not yet enough to work our system at its maximum power, or anything near it. The great cry of the Church is for master minds. The pulpits of the cities, our literature, and our educational institutions--so comparatively recent-make the demand ring incessantly in the ears of the Episcopal cabinet. Our prosperity is, in fine, our embarrassment. Let us thank God that the evil is so fortunate a one, and meanwhile press forward loyally and bravely through our difficulties. large-hearted man, not to say large-minded, should blush to be heard croaking under such circumstances. A One of two things seems to be inevitable, respecting the Presiding Eldership in the Atlantic States-either the appointment to it of our most commanding talents, or a very thorough modification of it. On the latter point I shall venture to say something below. Next to this question, there is a disposition among many in these regions, and, I think, throughout the Atlantic Conferences, to extend the term of the ministerial appointments. The question is very vague yet, but it excites no little interest, especially among an important class of ministerial brethren. Some propose a period of three years-others, four; I think the largest party would take off all restriction-leaving the appointment to the Episcopacy, and, of course, the concurrence of the people. The most emphatic criticisms upon our economy, that I have ever heard within the Church, have been upon this subject. There are superior men among us, and not a few, who consider the change a "sine qua non;" they doubt the further success of Methodism, in the denser communities at least, without it. It will not do to ascribe the zeal of these men on the subject to personal motives-that would be unbrotherly, to say the least-but more egregious logical blunders could hardly be made, than I have heard in the arguments for this revolution (for such it would be) in our economy. I speak now, of course, of the demand for an indefinite term of appointment. The mere addition of one or two years is a very different question; it involves nothing not already involved and conceded in our present term of two years, instead of one; and when we come to consider the question of how far the Church can meet these "reformatory" demands, it will be seen that your correspondent has no alarming bigotry on the subject. The doctrine of an indefinite appointment, however, he hesitates not to pronounce a downright practical heresy, striking at the very constitution of Methodism; and one of its ugliest features is, that its extreme impolicy will be liable to render suspicious every other and more admissible "reform" with which it is associated. The design of this section of my letter is not so much to argue these questions, as to make explanatory references to them, preparatory to the more practical question that remains. Without, then, attempting to grapple with the discussion here, allow me merely to enumerate some of the objections to this extreme change. First. It would take off one of the most important checks upon the appointing power. The present restriction, it is well known, was made purposely to qualify that power. The ministerial appointments were originally indefinitebeing discretionary entirely with the bishop; but they were attended with unmanageable difficulties. They included not only two years or one year, but often, even in large cities, but six months. Few things contributed more to the settlement of the Churches than the introduction of the present restriction. It was found necessary as a relief to both the bishops and the Churches. Second. It would inevitably "congregationalize" our system. Can any thoughtful man doubt it? And can any man persist in this demand among us, unless it be from the conviction that the time has come when we ought to be congregationalized? With the latter assumption we must meet him on general grounds; we must prove to him, as we most certainly can, that the new regions of the country, needing the Itinerancy, are now larger than they ever were in our history; that in all the settled portions of the nation, not excepting the large cities, like Boston, New-York, &c., every condition which called for the peculiarities of our economy half a century ago, exists now, only with fourfold more urgency; that in our large communities Methodism (as proved in my late letter) has worked better than any congregational system; that in the denser population of England, with the restriction of three years on its appointments, and a universal itinerancy, (the old circuit system being kept up even in the cities,) it has outworked all congregational or localized systems except that of the national Church, and in a certain sense even that. Against congre It should be remarked that the disastrous troubles in the Wesleyan body have not once involved the to hold fast to the Itinerancy. question referred to; both parties have the good sense gationalism, as sustained by our Congregational brethren, I have nothing to say-it has its place in the great providential system of religious provisions for the salvation of the country, and its Churches are distinguished for zeal, beneficence, and success; but Methodism has also its place, and our sister Churches hold us responsible for it; we cannot be congregationalists. That the proposed change will congregationalize us, I will not delay to argue. It would be superfluous to do so. The only motive for the change would be that the preacher might retain longer the appointment, the people retain longer the preacher. The concession once made, every day would make it less and less possible to disturb the relation, unless where mutual discords intervened to demand a change; the discontents-the mutual quarrels of Churches and pastors-must then become the rule of our itinerant changes, not that mighty motive, of the best distribution of the best energies of the Church, which has hitherto regulated our policy and made it everywhere to triumph. This would do well enough for Congregationalism, but not for a militant system like ours, around which we have all joined hands with the voluntary pledge of sacrificing the smaller advantage for the greater. Third. By localizing the higher talents of the Church, in given places, it would prevent that distribution of our energies which we now secure. Methodism does not ignore the claims of genius or of talent for befitting posts; that would be as absurd as to attempt to neutralize a natural law-it proposes only to regulate the natural tendency of talent in this respect. And in doing this, it offers special facilities to talent; a young man of genius in most other Churches, after graduating at the theological school, must find the vacant place, wherever it may be perhaps in the obscure mountain village; while self-respectable and well-fed mediocrity often retains, by mere right of long preoccupation, the great city positions. He may be hid in his obscurity, year in and year out, until his chance comes. Mere accident is almost his only hope of getting recognized, and at last called into a more prominent placethe accident of an occasional journey beyond his parish, of a visit to the city, &c. A young Methodist preacher of talents cannot, on the other hand, escape general recognition, did he even wish to; he is whirled about by the Itinerancy in such manner that he cannot but be quickly seen by the general Church, and his chief danger is that he shall be prematurely promoted to responsibilities which may break him down for life. Congregationalize us now, and what follows? Why, on the one hand, that the men of talent, in important places, are kept there, instead of being transferred to other posts which they might soon make as important; and on the other, that men of no special claims, who through any cause (and there are causes various enough) get into strong positions, will be very likely to hold them to the exclusion of better, but less fortunate men; and we shall soon have, like other denominations, a host of unsettled, disappointed men, hanging about the connection, with talents and domestic necessities justifying important ap pointments, but with no suitable opportunity for them. But not only this. If it were the case that talent could easily find its legitimate place in such a state of things, and were concentrated in the important stations, your feeble posts would suffer in a manner which is not possible now, with your incessant redistribution of men." I doubt not that under any congregational arrangement, Methodism would fall away onefifth in five years. Your poorer Churches would fail-your poorer preachers would retire. And is this a consideration to be disregarded by devout and generous men, who have been providentially placed under our effective system? Fourth. The proposed arrangement would open the flood-gates of unceasing discord between the appointing power and the Churches. The only hope of peace would be the succumbency of the former. Fifth. The great and noblest economical principle of Methodism-that of seeking the general, instead of local advantage—would be sacrificed. Such is but a glance at the argument against this most preposterous design. The most important remaining project of "reform" is Lay Representation. Some propose it on grounds of expediency, as a source of energy to the system. Others claim it on grounds of abstract, of "mutual rights." I shall refer to the question at length directly. The Church is familiar with its outlines from old controversies. One of my questions remains yet to be answered-How are we to treat these demands? ous. First. Let me say, and with all possible emphasis, that the time has passed (and forever passed, I hope) in which we should treat the men who propose such changes with proscription. I do not say that we have ever done so in any judicial manner; but I think there has been a somewhat general disposition among us to tacitly proscribe them as disloyal and dangerIt has done us much moral harm, I doubt not. It has made our ostensible men, who are fitted to lead us through desirable experiments, over-cautious; and thereby given to inferior and dangerous leaders the control of public opinion, in times of agitation. Look at the anti-slavery movement among us, if you want proof of the fact. Nearly all our northern men-the leading men, and the mass of the conferences-stand to-day where the first leaders of Methodist abolitionism stood. Yet the latter, under the Rev. Mr. Scott and his associates, were left to rush on impetuously into ultraism and schism, and to drag large portions of the Church after them. It may certainly be said, that if the commanding minds of the Church had taken, in those disastrous days, the stand which they now take, on slavery and its relative questions, incalculable mischief would have been averted from us. I know that this intimation will not be very acceptable to Dr. Wayland said in his anniversary sermon at Rochester, that there are now four thousand Churches in the Baptist denomination destitute of pastors-a number equal to nearly two-thirds of the whole Methodist ministry. The statement implies that there must be, also, a very large number of pastors destitute of Churches. some estimable brethren; I nevertheless utter it, respectfully but unhesitatingly. The prevalent over-cautiousness among us must be characterized as timidity, because it is unnecessary. It is not only unnecessary, but very impolitic. It is not the best way to meet public difficulties. It is not what the people have a right to expect of those to whom it confides its fate. My own sympathy, my ultraism, if you please, in favor of the specialities of Methodism, is, I believe, not denied. Yet I must insist that we are too fastidious in our judgment and treatment of brethren who suggest changes. We are still too much disposed to characterize them as " Radicals," a term which, however good in its etymology, is a synonym of proscription in our ecclesiastical vocabulary. Let us have done with this. It is out of season. It harms us not only by intimidating the prudent men who should be our leaders, but by giving to imprudent and dangerous would-be leaders the energy that comes of a sense of persecution or desperation. Let it be conceded among us that good men-our best men-may loyally conceive that changes are desirable in our system-that their very loyalty may lead them to propose such changes, and demonstrate itself in the interest, yet prudence and magnanimity with which they may be advocated. How much better this, than for such men to be compelled always to feel that they are thrown, by the severity of a limited and vague public opinion, into a posture of antagonism to the Church? "But this has always been conceded," it will be said. Yes, it has, hypothetically, but not practically. Second. Let us place the vindication of our ecclesiastical system on its true basis-on utilitarian grounds alone-for it has none other, and needs none other; and let me say further, it can stand on none other. This is a genuine sentiment of Wesleyanism. Excepting the admitted doctrine of the divine authorization of the Christian ministry, John Wesley, after reading Lord King, threw to the winds-whether rightly or wrongly-most pretensions to divine authority in matters of ecclesiastical economy; and this, whatever others may think of it, was in the estimation of the Methodists one of the noblest demonstrations of his practical good sense and progressive intellect. Southey justly says that he devised nothing in his scheme, a priori; he adopted whatever God sent in his providence. He was turned out of the churches, and thence came out-door preaching. Maxwell exhorted in his absence, and spoke well, and did good, and thence came the Lay Ministrythe greatest fact in the Church since the Reformation. Local religious interest, in places apart, required him and his laborers to travel to and fro, and thence came the Itinerancy. Little gatherings at Bristol to procure funds for the church debt, were found profitable for religious conversation, and thence arose the Class Meeting. The untrained character of his ministerial recruits rendered it necessary that he should assemble them together at times for counsel and redistribution, and thence came the Annual Conference. The withdrawal of the English clergy of this country during our Revolution, deprived the people of the sacraments in the middle and western states; Wesley pro vided for the exigency by the ordination of Coke; and thence came the Methodist Episcopacy. A few men were ordained by the new bishops to traverse sections of the Church for the purpose of administering the omitted sacraments; they were found useful in other administrative matters, and thence came the Presiding Eldership. In fine, the whole organic system of Methodism arose thus from adventitious, or rather providential circumstances; and this is the secret of its practical effectiveness, notwithstanding its undeniable and almost untraceable complexity. And this is the only way that a good constitution for either Church or State can arise. There never was a practicable one constructed a priori; and hence the failure of the constitutions of the late European revolutionists. Our own federal constitution is no exception to the remark, for it was but a reconstruction and generalization of the colonial constitutions under which the people had been educated. What then is the summary doctrine of a genuine Methodist, regarding Church politics? It is this, viz. :-That the ecclesiastical system which works best-which best accomplishes the mission of religion, the spread of holiness over the world-is the best one, and therefore the right one. There is but one qualification that a genuine Methodist Churchman will want to attach to this postulate, and that is the proviso that the system enforces no duty or disability on clergy or laity, which a good man cannot admit without wronging his conscience. Now precisely here does Methodism theoretically stand; and here only, I repeat, can it stand one hour under the scrutiny of sensible men; and here, to such men, it stands altogether triumphant. We have erred egregiously in our attempts to defend it on abstract political grounds-to find in it justificatory analogies with systems of civil polity. I plead guilty to no little vexation at hearing good Methodists belabor their opponents with proofs that the system is republican! It is not republican. But is it aristocratic then? No. Is it monarchical? No. What is it then? Why, it is Methodistical. And there is no evasion whatever in this reply. Are our corporate companies democratic, aristocratic, monarchic? Do we require that every combination for a given practical purpose should be studiously modeled after the type of your political scheme? We have a military and naval regime, and it requires the patriotic citizen to obey unto death at the cannon's mouth; but does the citizen, who voluntarily enters the army or navy, cease to be a citizen and a republican? No, he is under the broad constitution of the State, and under that protection he can safely put himself to any special privation or responsibility for any special end that utilitarian reasons may justify, and conscience not deny. What follies should we perpetrate if the demand for a republican type of government were made in all our voluntary and business combinationsbanks, manufacturing companies, army, navy, &c.? Let us away, I repeat, with such blundering logic; we injure our cause by it, for by it we concede to our assailants the very vantage ground from which they attack us. We must |