Imagens da página
PDF
ePub

not allow them to enter on that ground. Our system ignores entirely the very proposition they would put in debate. When, therefore, a man rises up within or without our pale, demanding a change in our system, we have but one summary argument for him, and it is in the old Socratic form- Will the change make the system work better? If it will, then it is from God, and "let God be true, but every man a liar;" if it will not, away with it. We are under this system for a given practical end; we stop not for any fine theorizing about political forms; we have secured our rights and those of our children, under the guardianship of the State; in this religious movement, called Methodism, we have placed ourselves under a quite militant regime, to be sure, but we have done so because there is evidently yet some hard fighting to be done in the moral world, and because evidently this system is doing it better than others; and because, further, its sacrifices are reciprocal between preachers and people, and offend not the conscience; and because, finally, we submit to them voluntarily, and can withdraw from them when we don't like them.

Thus viewed, the concessions of a Methodist to his Church economy are not slavery, but heroism; and every Methodist should so assert them.

I have dwelt the longer on this generalized view of the subject, because I think it is comprehensive of almost every point in debate about our system, and will, therefore, save me the delay of more particularized reasonings.

First. It throws down almost every barrier, founded on "divine rights," or traditional authority, against useful changes.

Second. It vindicates our honor as men and citizens, for submission to an ecclesiastical system which we approve, notwithstanding we may admit many of the objections of our oppo

[blocks in formation]

Fifth. It requires the Church to stand in a favorable attitude for improvements-leaning forward ever-backward never. She is not shackled by unalterable precedents. Her now stupendous interests and responsibilities should never be risked by whimsical experiments, but the highest wisdom of her policy-the only stability of her power-will be, under God, the good sense with which her leading minds shall comprehend the public opinion of her people, and the wants of the times, and meet them by changes so continuous that they shall never have occasion to become convulsive or revolutionary.

I will venture, my dear sir, still farther in these concessions; for I believe that it is by wise forbearance, by the settlement of a wise policy respecting changes in our system, that we are to secure it against those ever-recurring

troubles which have agitated it from the days of O'Kelly down to our own. I will admit, then

Third. That we should hold it as a subject open to discussion. This is an inevitable result from the fundamental view of our economy just stated. Nothing but practical expediency can be a good argument in favor of such changes, and nothing but the same argument can be relevant against them; any such utilitarian expediency must be a matter of progressive development in the history of the denomination; it must, therefore, be revealed by the changing circumstances of the Church, and these circumstances can be ascertained and appreciated only by observation and discussion. A large liberty of discussion is then, I repeat, a necessity of our cause; in no other denomination should it be more freely accorded. The whole genius of our system presupposes it. Its healthfulness depends upon it.

And I have no vague meaning when I thus, from my loyalty to our common cause, demand open discussion of these subjects for it. I mean that its official organs should be open for such discussions. The inquiry, how can its practical system be made more and still more effective, is one of their most legitimate topics, and one that would subserve greatly the welfare of the Church. It would keep up a lively interest for it among the people. It would bring out the vindication of it, and make, therefore, more secure what is really important in the system. while it would lead to a more ready rectification of what is defective or obsolete. It would keep the popular mind more fully acquainted with and therefore better contented with its peculiarities-a matter rendered necessary by its unquestionable complexity. It would preserve the loyalty of many good but dissatisfied men, who, seeing the system habitually open to scrutiny and discussion, would feel assured that what they deem exceptionable in it, must sooner or later be made right, or shown to be so already. It would take away the provocation for separate movements and separate papers, and keep such discussions under the control of the Church. But would it not lead to unhealthy agitations? No. And let me say that such a question deserves something different from a respectful negative. It is an obsolete question in our age. It is against all the conditions of healthful inquiry and progress that characterize the civilization of our times. have editors, and they certainly have powers enough. They alone ought to be held responsible for any excesses to which they may allow such discussions to go. I believe that most of the evils which beset such controversies come of the peculiar provocations which a timid and proscriptive treatment of them produces. Any man who should write an ablearticle through our papers, on the means of rendering our missionary schemes more effective, could hardly fail to deepen the interest felt for that cause, however impracticable his suggestions. No such writer would be deemed

We

There have been at least five secessions, more or less strong, from the Methodist Episcopal Church, within eighty years, averaging one to every sixteen years. All, except one of them, were accompanied with agitations respecting our Church polity.

disloyal; quite otherwise: "he is actively interested in the good cause," would every one

say.

Why then, in the name of all logic, should we treat differently the discussion of our ecclesiastical system; a system confessedly founded in expediency, and therefore subject to the influences of time and place? Personally I am the more solicitous that we should right ourselves in this respect, because I consider our fears a species of cowardice, and believe that they do us harm among valuable men within our pale, and the religious public without our pale. We need not these fears; our system, so literally magnificent in its results, may challenge any tests-especially while we vindicate it on the genuine Wesleyan ground of practical utility, stated above.

Our New-England brethren remember an experimental proof of the view here given. There was a time when their atmosphere was rife with agitation, and scarcely an altar was there among them that did not tremble with the shock. The anti-slavery excitement was transferred to the arena of Church politics. Our fundamental economy was in question, and the question was exasperated beyond any precedent in our history, by the fact that it was complicated with slavery-a great problem that touched the humanity and conscience of the people. The Churches were tried as by fire in that memorable day. How did they treat the subject in their organ, Zion's Herald, the paper that Dr. Dixon's book says has done more than any other in the country for the development and demonstration of Methodism? Did they fear and evade the discussion? Not at all; they affirmed that their system could stand any scrutiny. They opened a department on the fourth page of their paper for discussions pro and con respecting it; and prescribed but two conditions for these discussions: the first was, that no personal vituperation should be used -the editor having power to expunge it, became responsible for it. The second was, that nothing should be admitted which was not in a spirit of loyalty to the common cause-designed not to injure it, but, by supposed amendments, to help it. Exterior enemies, they remarked, had their own organs; they accorded them the right of assailing the Church to their hearts' content, but the Church's own columns were sacred to its own use; any genuine Methodist had, however, the right of free speech within them, subject to these two conditions. What was the result? The truth came out, as it always will in fair debate. The agitation subsided; the people were confirmed in their Methodistic fidelity, and are more so now than any other section of the country; as there was no unreasonable restraint on discussion, the strongest usual provocation to it was gone; the disputants fell off one after another to attend to better things; by and by an occasional shot was faintly heard -and then came unbroken calm.

This was the legitimate result of the policy pursued.

Let us then cease to fear in this respect. The Church is safe, so far as these questions are concerned, if our editors only lead us wisely. Allow me most respectfully to say, that I think the discussion of practical Methodism a want in our papers generally. The people will love VOL. VII.-6

it, and stand firmly by it, if they comprehend it; but it is a complicated machinery-wheels within wheels-thence comes its effectiveness, but thence also comes the liability of misapprehensions respecting it. Our official organs have the best power to maintain for it a popular sympathy by giving it popular expositions.

I am aware, dear sir, that there are some rather delicate implications in the preceding remarks. There are good men in the Church who will not readily admit that there is any such tacit disability among us, in the discussion of these questions. There are others, of different mettle, who would like, perhaps, to resent the implication. Both must accord me the privilege of differing from them. If they believe that the writer respecting the improvement of our Church economy fares no worse than he who, as above supposed, writes in the same manner about our missionary plans, I have only to assure them that I should heartily rejoice to share their comfortable views of the case, but have failed so to observe the tone of opinion among us.

I consider the above topic a fundamental one in the discussion, and therefore worthy of this distinct and special notice. I have long despaired of the settlement of the main questions involved, unless some of these incidental ones could be first cleared up.

Thus far, we have considered some of the proposed "reforms" of our Church economy, and the manner in which the demand for them should be treated. I have been the more anxious that a clear and prudent word should be uttered on the subject, because I think that, though the disposition for such changes is gradually and surely extending in the Church, it is so tranquil and considerate that now is precisely the time for such an utterance-that such an utterance, especially if it could come from higher authority than in the present instance, would tend much to avert the agitations which may yet proceed from these "reform" questions, should the guides of public opinion among us treat them imprudently. I am tempted, therefore, to venture in this letter a little further, and, having shown the general treatment which these questions should receive at the hands of the Church, dismiss the subject with some more specific references to the points of "reform" in question-gathering up and reporting the best sense of the Church respecting them, as far as my late travels have made it known to me. I wish the task I have attempted had been undertaken by any one more authoritative than myself; but as it has not, my brethren generally will forbear with me. I shall constrain them at least to admit that my remarks are candid, and in the spirit of a genuine loyalty to our common cause.

I need say but little respecting the question of prolonging the time of our ministerial appointments, as I have discussed it at some length. An indefinite term (the favorite plan, I think, of many in this section) is, as I have shown, altogether inadmissible. Allow me to say even that the proposition is a blunder, and in that sense unfortunate for the advocates of "reform," as it tends to excite among the conservative friends of the Church apprehensions at any more reasonable change. Nor should the ad

vocates of a four years' term be too persistent; if their proposal were even a salutary one, still it asks too much for the present state of opinion among us. Methodism has worked so well, and is, unquestionably, still working so well, that there is an almost tremulous fear of changes among us. It is impolitic to challenge this feeling exorbitantly. The addition of one year to our present term is all that can be expected till at least that addition itself has been thoroughly tested, and found to be successful. While there is no urgent demand for even this change, I think our city Churches generally wish it, and a large and important class of preachers advocate it, and look for it as the next modification in Methodism. Meanwhile there are good brethren in the conferences who resist the suggestion with quite superfluous proofs of their anti-radicalism. I have known at least one excellent man who lost his election to the General Conference, because he was considered an "innovator" in this one respect; and were not your humble servant as resolute against receiving any such honor as his brethren can be against giving it to him, it might be well for him to guard a little his pen here. But he ventures to say that he sees nothing very appalling in the proposal-nothing at all so formidable and scarecrowish as would be any magisterial protestations made against it in the name of "oldfashioned Methodism." It happens not to be a "radical" point in Methodism. The period of appointment has already been subject to change. Wesley thought he could not well preach longer than a year or two to the same congregation. Wesleyan Methodism, however, wisely thought otherwise, and adopted three years the arrangement works well; it could not work as well with a two years' appointment, as every man who has seen its working must be convinced. Wesleyan Methodism keeps up, however, the circuit system, even in London and Liverpool; we erred sadly when we gave that up. If we could restore it with a three years' appointment, I should "thank God and take courage" for our cause.

The period of appointment was quite an indefinite matter in American Methodism originally; practically, however, it varied from six months to one year; leading preachers were sometimes removed at the end of half a year from Baltimore to Philadelphia, from Philadelphia to New-York, from Newport to Boston, from Boston to Lynn.

The present definite law on the subject was, as I have said, an innovation rendered necessary by the continued uncertainties which beset both the administration of the bishops, and the calculations of preachers and Churches.

The change to two years is a justificatory precedent for any other similar change which the circumstances of the Church may render necessary.

We all admit that one year or six months would be absurd in our present appointments, owing to the changed circumstances of the Church; and I think that few reflecting men will tremble at the possible consequences of the addition of another year to the present term. Its indirect effects upon our Itinerancy cannot be important; the "Itinerancy" is maintained

more thoroughly in England with three years than in this country with two. Our only policy about this question should be, I think, that when it becomes manifest that the public mind among us generally desires it, we should grant it without fear. But enough on this point.

The most important of these proposed reforms is what is called Lay Representation. And here comes into play especially the great summary principle of Methodist Church polity discussed above, viz.: that expediency, utilitarianism, is the basis of the whole structure. Lay representation then is an unfortunate phrase: it presupposes a theory of rights as applicable to the system; it would require the system to take an abstract, a philosophical form, instead of its present purely practical and militant one. This its whole history ignores, as we have shown it does not deny that there are such abstract rights" mutual rights," as they were called in the controversy of 1825-far otherwise; but it claims the right to waive an abstract right. It denies such rights no more than the republic denies that a citizen when he joins the army or navy possesses inherent rights. He puts himself under the military or naval regime voluntarily, except in extreme cases; and even then he puts himself there indirectly, for he adopts the law by which the government compels his services, even if he had nothing to do with originating it, as in the case of all citizens born after the adoption of the constitution or the law. So with the Methodist: his Church, when he enters it, shows him, on the whole face of its organization, that it is thoroughly militant in its economy, and is so because it finds that militant system the most successful. All Churches are militant; but this professes to be so in a special sense, and in respect to the very matters in question. The ministry tell this to the people; the people tell it back to the ministry. Its self-denials are common to both, save that the ministry, with more responsibilities of power, have also more real grievances from the system.

We are a thoroughly militant Church, let it be repeated, and let us boast of the fact. We ac knowledge no "divine right" in Church organizations, but practical expediency. We compromise our abstract rights for the common good, as the patriotic citizen does, in the wars of his country. We profess not to be democratic, or aristocratic, or monarchic, but Methodisticand we mean by that phrase, that in these economic matters practical utility is the "divine right" with us-that upon this we concentrate all our energies; for this sacrifice anything and everything except what conscience itself interdicts.

Hence, then, follows this important conclusion, viz. that no change in our polity can be demanded, on the ground of abstract rights, except we upset the whole virtual compact, and transfer it from its present utilitarian basis to one purely philosophical-one that would have to be contrived a priori, and introduced by a revolution. And then, one party claiming its rights on ethical grounds alone, another can of course do the same; the layman claiming his abstract rights, the clergyman can do so too. What in the end becomes of your Itinerancyof everything now at once onerous and effective

in Methodism? Is it not manifest that nearly everything now distinctive of it must "go by the board?"

I have dwelt on this summary view of Methodist Churchmanship in a former part of this letter, but it cannot be too clearly and emphatically presented. I insist upon it as the solution, and the only solution of the peculiarities-the problems-of the system.

But this does not invalidate the claim for what is called "lay representation" (let me rather call it lay cooperation) in the higher counsels of the Church; it only puts it upon another basis, the basis upon which the whole system rests-practical expediency. Will the system work better with such cooperation than without it? That's the question. And let me exhort all lay brethren, who favor the demand, never to allow it to be complicated with abstract theories. Here has been the mistake of our former controversies on the subject; abstract "rights" were demanded, and the phrase "mutual rights" adopted as the device of the insurrectionary banner; as well might a patriotic soldier pause in the midst of battle and refuse to advance, till he could be accorded his abstract right of electing his commander and legislating the "orders of the day." What a waste of breath had we in the controversies of 1825 by this preposterous blunder?

I think the demand for the introduction of laymen into the conferences (whether Annual or General) is now usually made as a matter of expediency, and on this ground it will receive more consideration and respect than on any other possible to the controversy: for on this ground alone will it be practicable. Claimed on any theory of rights, it could only be met by a readjustment of our entire economy, in such manner that the whole question of relative rights shall be met. This, as we have said, could be done only by a revolution, and a remodeling of the system; it is, therefore, perfectly hopeless. But claimed on considerations of expediency alone, the change can be graduated to the actual necessity or propriety of the case. It can be begun as a cautious experiment, and in a small degree, whereas on any theory of abstract rights the whole extent of the right claimed must be granted, and granted at once; for if you admit an equitable claim at all, you admit an unequitable, that is, an unrighteous deficiency on the part of the Church, so far as she comes at all short of the whole claim.

With this view, what can be done regarding this particular question of "lay representation?"

It strikes me that the plan adopted by several annual conferences within a few years is a safe and satisfactory beginning, and in accordance with the above doctrine of Methodist Churchmanship.

[ocr errors]

It is no "representation" founded upon a numerical ratio, as any abstract theory would require; but the appointment of one or more laymen from each Presiding Elder's district, by the District Stewards, meeting to attend the annual conference, and assist, in committee, the financial business of the conference. This plan has been sufficiently experimented to demonstrate not only its safety but its utility. It began in one or two conferences at the South,

|

and has been adopted, I suppose, by this time, in nearly all of them. Every conference which adopted it, advanced immediately, and some of them surprisingly, in their finances. Alabama was one of the first. The lay delegates took an active part in not only the committee business, but the anniversary celebrations, and gave them new interest and importance. The Southern Church is, I think, universally convinced that it took a great step forward when it received this suggestion. The Alabama Conference now reports $20,000 for missions, and settles with its conference claimants at ninetytwo per cent.-extraordinary facts in the history of Southern Methodism.

So well has this experiment worked that the last General Conference of the Church, South, took action in its favor, and thus gave the highest constitutional indorsement to it. That fact forms, itself, an epoch in the annals of Methodism.

This arrangement has been introduced into several of our Western Conferences. I was present at the Pittsburgh session, where it was, I think, unanimously adopted; and a remark of the chairman of the committee, Dr. Clark, of the Pittsburgh Advocate, viz., that it would be the safe beginning of further modifications, which time and the experiment might suggest, was approvingly received.

[ocr errors]

This is the way to meet the demand. And beginning in this way, we shall see how much further and when to advance. "Do the duty nearest to you," says some one," and all others will come in their time and place." I believe that most of our laymen who wish "lay representation would be satisfied with it as an experimental initiation of the whole question. Even with the present organization of our conferences it would not be difficult to manage this change. There is but one class of business pertaining to an annual conference in which our laymen could not well assist us, viz., its judicial proceedings. I include in this class not only regular "trials," but the usual examination of character. On the maxim that a man should be tried by his peers, these proceedings should be limited to the ministry. Besides these, we have only executive business, in almost every item of which laymen could do as well, if not better than ourselves. After an hour or so, per day, spent in its judicial proceedings, the conference could resolve itself into a committee of the whole, for its other business, and thus admit the laymen to a full participation (even as far as voting) in most of its transactions for each day. A similar course has been adopted in some Southern conferences the conferences meeting, in committee of the whole, in the afternoon.

Here then is not only a practicable, but an unquestionably useful plan, which, as an experimental one, would be safe, and at the same time satisfactory, nay, I am certain, highly

* Of course I do not include the Appointments in "Conference business," for they belong solely to the Episcopal cabinet, and could be made and published independently of the session, and are in fact only announced before it, on its termination-usually after the minutes are finally read and signed, if not after the formal adjournment. As to legislative powers, the Annual Conference has none whatever, properly.

gratifying to many of our best laymen throughout the country. If it should be found to work well, no one doubts that it would lead to still more satisfactory changes.

I am extending this letter, my dear sir, too far; but let me summarily say that this arrangement would have the following advantages among many others :

First. It would powerfully promote the success of our conference finances, and other business, by giving us the business talents of our ablest laymen.

Second. It would help the great interests of our work, in the interim of the sessions, for these laymen would carry to their respective districts a better knowledge of and a profounder interest in our affairs. They would stimulate them everywhere. We have a great deal of lay zeal now. Give this opportunity to our laymen, and you will see what will come of it-see it to the joy of the whole Church.

Third. It will meet the growing desire for lay cooperation in the higher responsibilities of the Church, even should it not be all that is asked for at once. It would thus quiet dissatisfactions, prevent alienations, and especially would it forestall those outbreaks for hypothetical innovations, which occasionally occur under our present economy, and which assimilate so readily with all other public disturbances among us.

Fourth. It would save us much reproach. Our system is now undeniably a very anomalous one. The most striking feature on the very face of it, is the organic isolation of the clergy in the midst of the people, as the official conductors of the system. This fact does not look well; it is folly for us to affect to say that it does. Our congregations, now filled with as capable laymen as can be found among American citizens, cannot contemplate the fact with indifference-much less can the public at large. It is only the historical origin of the fact that vindicates it. Thus considered, it is no disparagement to us. Our ministry came here a corps by themselves; they formed classes and then societies, mostly of untutored people, (and the fact was much to their evangelical honor, Matt. xi, 5;) they passed along over circuits of hundreds of miles, affiliating these small untrained societies. It was a necessity that they should discipline and govern them. They assembled among themselves periodically to report their success, re-distribute their labors, and revise their disciplinary methods; thus they grew into a consolidated and isolated body of ecclesiastics-necessarily and without ambitious design. The history of the fact, I say, excuses it.

But now that our thoroughly organized Churches dot every village and city; now that we report hundreds of thousands of talented laymen-men who rule in the business and municipalities of the country, and are equally competent to do so in the affairs of the Churchshould this peculiar state of things be continued, if there is any modification of it possible? I will not reason with any man who says it should. The reason why it has been maintained thus far has, I am grateful to say, been a common one to both preachers and people—a fear lest by altering our economy we should impair its energy. So long as there is reason

[ocr errors]

to fear this result, let us not touch it; let people and preachers unitedly forbid any interference with it. But the above modification is found not only a priori, but experimentally feasible. It seems to me to be unexceptionable -even its possible results as a precedent, I think, can only be good, if there is any truth in the most primary maxims of the political and business prudence of the age; and happy shall we all be if, in addition to the other advantages enumerated, it shall tend to suppress the misapprehensions and impeachments which our brethren of other denominations utter so incessantly against us.

I trust, my dear sir, that I shall not be misconstrued. I have uttered in another form and with the indorsement of the Church, decided objections to the theoretical doctrine of "lay representation," chiefly because of its impracticability. I have done so in this article; but I argue now for another thing, and one that I hail with inexpressible interest as a providential development in our history. I treat of an experiment which has already been initiated under high sanction, and I do so from as warm and loyal a heart as beats for Methodism in this land-one that owes its hopes of salvation to it, and therefore looks with filial solicitude to its future.

Another topic remains-the Presiding Eldership. I have little room for it, and I confess that I refer to it with reluctance; after what I have said above on the subject, you will believe that I regard it with much more than its usual estimation among our people. It would be a mighty arm of power, if rightly used. Let me throw my necessarily brief remarks upon it into a few propositions.

First. If we would keep it intact, we must man it with our best talents. But how shall we spare them? The Lord raise us up men!

Second. To make it elective would, I believe, help it. I confess I belong to the old school of "election," in this respect. The "reform" movement of 1825 alone defeated this improvement. Bishop Hedding was elected to the Episcopate as the representative of the change in contrast with Bishop Soule, who represented the opposite opinion. Bangs, Emory, and, in fine, the Northern delegations generally were for it; but the agitation of the "reformers" coming on, drove them to other matters, and it has since been a neglected question.

Third. The question, could we have a local Presiding Elder, having charge of a station, with a suitable number of Churches under his presidency, to be visited mostly on week days? is worthy of consideration. At least, could not this arrangement be left to the option of the Annual Conferences? They now have, virtually. by their Episcopal cabinet, the determination of how many Districts or Presiding Elders they will have. Why could they not also determine whether the Presiding Elder shall have a local appointment or not; or on what District he shall travel, and on what not? This "legislative" power, if such it should be called, would be analogous only to what the Annual Conferences already exercise in many cases.

Three-fourths of our work, as I have said, need the office as it is; but if any Conference

« AnteriorContinuar »