Nathan Bangs · 27 of 28

Chapter 9. The General Conference of 1828. · Part 3

“The memorialists, we know, disavow any intention or desire to impair those energies, or to injure this system. Be it so. They can, however, only speak for themselves. They know not what may be the views of those who may come after them. And, in any event, our argument is, that the change proposed would, in its very nature, and from the inevitable connections of causes and effects, tend, gradually perhaps, yet not the less uncontrollably, to the results which we have mentioned.

“We know also that it has been insinuated that we adhere to the continuance of our present polity from motives of personal interest. For protection against such unkindness and injustice we rest on the good sense and candor of the community. It cannot but be well known that our present economy bears with a peculiar severity upon the personal and domestic comforts of the itinerant ministry. And even an enemy could scarcely fail to admit that, were we really ambitious of worldly interest, and of personal ease, and domestic comfort, we might have the discernment to perceive that the surest way to effect these objects would be to effect the changes proposed, and thus to prepare the way for the enjoyment of similar advantages, in these respects, to those now enjoyed by the settled ministry of other churches. And, indeed, were such a change effected, and should we even still continue itinerant, considering that, from the necessity of things, our wealthy and liberal friends would most generally be selected as delegates, we do not doubt that the change proposed might probably tend to increase our temporal comforts. We think this the more probable, because, if such a direct representation of the laity were admitted, their constituents might ultimately become obliged, by some positive provisions, fully to make up and pay whatever allowances might be made to the ministry; which allowances, in this event, might also more properly acquire the nature of a civil obligation. At present our economy knows no such thing. The great Head of the church himself has imposed on us the duty of preaching the gospel, of administering its ordinances, and of maintaining its moral discipline among those over whom the Holy Ghost, in these respects, has made us overseers. Of these also, namely, of gospel doctrines, ordinances, and moral discipline, we do believe that the divinely instituted ministry are the divinely authorized expounders; and that the duty of maintaining them in their purity, and of not permitting our ministrations, in these respects, to be authoritatively controlled by others, does rest upon us with the force of a moral obligation, in the due discharge of which our consciences are involved. It is on this ground that we resist the temptations of temporal advantage which the proposed changes hold out to us.

“On this point we beg, however, that no one may either misunderstand or misrepresent us. We neither claim nor seek to be ‘lords over God’s heritage.’ In the sense of this passage, there is but one Lord and one Lawgiver. We arrogate no authority to enact any laws of our own, either of moral or of civil force. Our commission is to preach the gospel, and to enforce the moral discipline, established by the one Lawgiver, by those spiritual powers vested in us, as subordinate pastors, who watch over souls as they that must give account to the chief Shepherd. We claim no strictly legislative powers, although we grant that the terms ‘legislature’ and ‘legislative’ have been sometimes used even among ourselves. In a proper sense, however, they are not strictly applicable to our General Conference. A mistake on this point has probably been the source of much erroneous reasoning, and of some consequent dissatisfaction. Did we claim any authority to enact laws to affect either life or limb, to touch the persons or to tax the property of our members, they ought, unquestionably, to be directly represented among us. But they know we do not. We certainly, then, exercise no civil legislation. As to the moral code, we are subject, equally with themselves, to one only Lord. We have no power to add to, to take from, to alter, or to modify a single item of his statutes. Whether laymen or ministers be the authorized expounders and administrators of those laws, we can confidently rely on the good Christian sense of the great body of our brethren to judge. These well know, also, that whatever expositions of them we apply to others, the same are applied equally to ourselves, and, in some instances, with peculiar strictness.

“No man is obliged to receive our doctrines merely because we believe and teach them, nor unless they have his own cordial assent. Neither is any man obliged to submit himself to what we believe to be the moral discipline of the gospel, and our duty to enforce, unless he believes it to be so also. In this view, at least, it cannot require any great share of either intelligence or candor to perceive some difference between our spiritual and pastoral oversight and the absolute sway of the ancient ‘Druids,’ and of the despots of ‘Babylon and Egypt,’ and of ‘India and Tartary.’ The subjects of their lawless power became so not by choice, but by birth. Neither had they the means, whatever might have been their desire, of escaping its grasp. Even in more modern days, and under governments comparatively free, the right of expatriation, without the consent of the government, has been denied. We do not subscribe to this doctrine, if applied to either church or state. The right of ecclesiastical expatriation, from any one branch of the Christian church to any other which may be preferred, for grave causes, we have never denied. Nor can we keep, nor are we desirous to keep, any man subject to our authority one moment longer than it is his own pleasure. We advert to this topic with great reluctance, but the memorialists compel us. If they will cease to compare us to despots, to whom we bear no analogy, we shall cease to exhibit the obvious distinction. Till then it is our duty to repel the imputation, so obstructive of our ministry. Expatriation, either civil or ecclesiastical, if we may continue this application of the term, may be painful, and attended with sacrifices. But we should certainly think it preferable to perpetual internal war. If our brethren can live in peace with us, in Christian bonds, we shall sincerely rejoice, and be cordially happy in their society and fellowship. But we entreat them not to keep us embroiled in perpetual strife. Our united energies are needed for higher and nobler purposes.

“We have been repeatedly told, in effect, that the doctrines, the moral discipline, and the peculiar Christian privileges of class meetings, love feasts, &c., in the Methodist Episcopal Church, are approved and esteemed, by the various memorialists themselves, above those of any other branch of the Christian church. Does it not then clearly follow, by their own admission, that, with all the faults of our government, this state of things has been preserved and maintained under the peculiar administrations of our itinerant system? And who will undertake to say that, under a gracious Providence, which has thus led us on, this has not, in a great measure at least, been the result of the distinctness of our polity from that of most other churches? And who will undertake to say that, were the changes proposed adopted, we should not gradually, though at first perhaps almost imperceptibly, begin to go the way of others? We speak to Methodists. They will judge what we say. The moral results of our past and present polity have been tried. Its fruits are before us, and confessed by the world. The experiment proposed, in connection with an essentially itinerant system, is untried. Its results, at best, must be problematical; and, in our opinion, there is no prospect of gain that can justify the hazard.

“With regard to our local brethren particularly, they have themselves explicitly said, that they ‘ask for no distinct representation of the local preachers.’ So far as this question is concerned, therefore, by their own consent, they can only be regarded as amalgamated with the laity: and our lay brethren, we apprehend, would not readily consent to its being considered in any other light.

“Were we disposed to retort the insinuation of sinister personal motives, how easy would it be for us to suggest that some of our local brethren who have deserted the itinerant field, (perhaps from its toils and privations,) and others who have never been pleased to leave domestic comforts and temporal pursuits to encounter its labors and sacrifices, may be so zealous in accomplishing the proposed change in order to cut up, or to bring down, the itinerant system to a nearer approximation to their temporal convenience. So that, in time, they might come, without the sacrifices at present necessary, to participate both in the pastoral charge, and, alas! in the envied pittance of those who now devote themselves wholly to the work, and are absolutely dependent for daily subsistence on the mere voluntary contributions of those whom they serve: (a check on their power indeed!) Such an imputation would be quite as kind and as true as many of those which are so liberally heaped on us. This course of argumentation, however, we deem unworthy of Christian brethren, and shall leave it for those who think their cause requires it. The man who can believe, or who can endeavor to persuade others, that we adhere to our present itinerant system for the sake of personal convenience, ease, or interest, or with the view of benefiting our posterity more than the posterity of our brethren, maybe pitied, but he places himself beyond the reach either of reasoning or of rebuke.

“The memorialists were sensible that ‘a plan’ of their proposed changes had been urgently called for, and seem to have been well aware that rational and conscientious men could not feel free to enter upon so great a revolution, in a system of such extent and of such connections, without a plan, clearly and frankly developed, and bearing the marks of having been carefully and judiciously devised. The memorialists indeed say, that, ‘independently of other considerations,’ they were ‘disposed to avoid the attempt to form a plan, out of deference to the General Conference.’ It would have been more satisfactory to us to have known what those ‘other considerations’ were. From some other circumstances, we cannot but apprehend that they probably had more influence in keeping back the expose of ‘a plan’ than the one mentioned here, of — ‘deference to the General Conference.’ On our part, we frankly confess ourselves incompetent to form any satisfactory plan, on any principles which we believe to be equal and efficient, and consistent with the energies and greatest usefulness of our extended missionary system. We think it, therefore, unreasonable, at least, to ask of us to contrive a ‘plan.’

“So far as we can judge from any experiment that has been made, in Europe or in America, we cannot perceive any great advantages which could be promised to the Church from the proposed change. Nor has the late convention in Baltimore afforded to our understanding any additional argument for its efficient practicability. Agreeably to the journal of that convention, one hundred persons were appointed to attend it, of whom fifty-seven only did attend, namely, from the state of New York, one; North Carolina, two Ohio, four; District of Columbia, four; Pennsylvania, seven; Virginia, ten; and Maryland, twenty-nine. Now that convention had been urgently called, by repeated public advertisements, and was expected to be held but a few days, to discuss subjects represented as of great importance and deep interest. Liberal invitations were given, and comfortable and free accommodations pledged. Yet, notwithstanding the novelty of the assembly, the pleasantness of the season, and other inviting circumstances, a very few more than one half of the whole number appointed attended. And had it required two-thirds of that number to constitute a quorum, as in our General Conference, after all their labor and expense, no business could have been done, for there would have been no quorum. Of the number that did attend, too, it will be perceived that a majority of the whole were from the state of Maryland, within which the convention was held; and, including the neighboring District of Columbia, a decisive majority. This exhibits a practical proof that, were a lay delegation even admitted, the consequence would be, that the extremities of our Church would not be, in fact, represented at all, but would be subjected to the overwhelming control of those within the vicinity of the seat of the conference; a state of things which, we believe, is not desirable. This may serve also, perhaps, to account, in some measure, for the great zeal which some of our brethren have exhibited in this cause, particularly in the state of Maryland and the adjoining district, and in the city of Baltimore, where the General Conference has usually been held. Were it established that the General Conference should always be held in St. Louis or New Orleans, or any other remote part, we cannot but think that the zeal of some, in that case, would probably be very much abated. Even they would scarcely be willing to travel so great a distance, at so much expense and loss of time, to remain three or four weeks at a General Conference.

“In another document, issued by the convention above alluded to, they say, ‘We have been laboring with great attention and perseverance to put the public in possession of our views as fast as we can.’ They have also had in circulation for many years a monthly periodical publication, for the express purpose of diffusing their views and advocating their cause, besides the institution of what have been called Union Societies, and of late a convention. Yet, after all these exertions, the great body of our ministers, both traveling and local, as well as of our members, perhaps not much if any short of one hundred to one, still oppose their wishes. This, as before said, has been assumed to be from ignorance or want of intellect, or from some worse principle. But we believe it to be the result of a firm and deliberate attachment to our existing institutions and economy an attachment which we have the happiness of believing to be increased, rather than diminished, in proportion to the development of the details of any plans which the memorialists have yet seen fit to exhibit. We put it, then, to the good sense, to the Christian candor, and to the calmer and better feelings of our brethren, whether it be not time to cease to agitate and disturb the Church with this controversy? — at least, if it must be continued, whether it be not time to divest it of that acrimony and virulence which, in too many instances, we fear, has furnished fit matter for the scoff of the infidel and the reproach of common enemies? If this state of things be continued, how can it be said, ‘See how these Christians love one another!’ It grieves us to think of it. We weep between the porch and the altar; and our cry is, ‘Spare, O Lord! spare thy people, and give not thine heritage to this reproach.’

“We know that we have been charged with wishing to suppress free inquiry, and with denying to our ministers and members the liberty of speech and of the press. Our feelings, under such reiterated and widely circulated charges, would tempt us to repel them with strong expressions. If reviled, however, we are resolved not to revile again. But the charge we wholly disavow. Our ministers and members, of every class, are entitled to the full liberty of speech and of the press, equally with any other citizens of the United States, subject solely to the restrictions and responsibilities imposed by the laws of the land, by the obligations of Christianity, and by the existing regulations under which we are voluntarily associated, as Methodists and as Methodist ministers. The rule in our Discipline, ‘sec. 7, p.91,’ (new edition, p. 88,) of which some of the memorialists complain, never was intended (and we are not aware that it has at any time been officially so construed) to suppress such freedom of inquiry, or to deny such liberty of speech and of the press; provided such inquiry be conducted, and such liberty be used, in a manner consistent with the above-mentioned obligations. The design of the rule was to guard the peace and union of the Church against any mischievous false brethren, who might be disposed to avail themselves of their place in the bosom of the Church to endeavors to sow dissensions, by inveighing against our doctrines or discipline, in the sense of unchristian railing and violence. Any other construction of it we have never sanctioned, nor will we. In this view of this rule, we cannot consent to its abolition. On the contrary, we regard it as a Christian and useful rule, and particularly necessary, at the present time, for the well-being of the Church. It is aimed against licentiousness, and not against liberty. In the state, as well as in the church, it is found necessary to subject both speech and the press to certain legal responsibilities, which undoubtedly operate as restraints, and tend to guard against licentiousness, by exposing offenders to penalties corresponding to the extent of their abuse of liberty. And we confess ourselves among the number of those who, with statesmen and jurists, as well as divines, maintain that even a despotic government is preferable to a state of unbridled anarchy.

“By insinuations of the above description, and by others of an analogous character, attempts have been made to excite against us the jealousy and suspicion of statesmen and politicians, and of the constituted authorities of the civil government. This low stratagem we have always regarded as peculiarly deserving the rebuke of every generous mind, even among our opponents: and we cannot believe otherwise than that it had its origin either in some distempered mind or some perverted heart. The memorialists wish the government of the Church to be assimilated to that of the state. We think, on the other hand, that as there neither is nor ought to be any connection between church and state, so neither is there any obligation or necessity to conform the government of the one to that of the other. That both their origin and their objects differ; and that to aim at conforming them to each other would be more likely, in the course of human events, to terminate in their amalgamation, than the course of denying such analogy, and maintaining the two jurisdictions on their peculiarly distinctive bases, under regulations adapted to the objects for which they were severally designed. In the instances of civil and religious despotism alluded to by the memorialists, as recorded in history, the powers of church and state were combined, and no means were left to the people of appealing or of escaping from the one or from the other. The first step toward producing such a state of things would be to bring ministers of religion and officers of state into a nearer alliance with each other, and thus gradually to effect an assimilation of views, and feelings, and interests. The way being thus prepared, politicians and statesmen might be introduced into our ecclesiastical councils, and, by a ‘mutual’ combination, aid each other in the accumulation of power and influence. We do not affirm that any of the memorialists seriously meditate such designs. But we do say, that, according to our understanding of the natural tendency of things, the change proposed is just such a one as would be most likely to be adopted by men of policy for the accomplishment of such an object; and that, in the present state of the world, nothing would be more impolitic than the continuance of our present economy with any such ambitious schemes in view as some, we fear, and must say, have malevolently insinuated.

“With regard to what have been called ‘Union Societies,’ we consider the organization of these distinct bodies within the bosom of the Church as the baneful source of the principal evils which of late have so painfully afflicted and distracted some portions of our charge. Such associations, within the pale of the Church, have arrayed and combined all the workings of the spirit of patty in their most pernicious and destructive forms. They have drawn a line of separation between those who compose them and their brethren, as organized and systematic adversaries. They have separated chief friends; they have severed the most sacred and endearing ties; and have caused and fomented discord and strife in circles before distinguished for peace and love. And under whatever plausible pretexts they may have been instituted, the Church generally, we believe, has regarded them as calculated, if not designed, either to obstruct the due administration of discipline, by overawing the administration of it, or to prepare an organized secession, in case they should fail in modeling the Church according to their wishes. With these associations numbers, we have no doubt, unwarily became connected at first, from various views, who now feel a difficulty in disentangling themselves. If, however, the real object of their original institution was to secure an identity of views in the communications to be presented to this General Conference, that object having been now accomplished, we affectionately and respectfully submit it to the peacefully disposed among our brethren who may yet compose them, whether there can yet be any remaining obligation to continue in them; and whether, in fact, they ought not now to be dissolved. In our opinion, considering what have been their past operation and effects, the general peace of the Church can never be restored and settled on any firm and lasting basis till this shall be done.

“We might add much more, but the time fails us. We entreat our brethren to be at peace. It is our earnest and sincere desire. In order to it, on our part, we have advised, and do hereby advise and exhort all our brethren, and all our ecclesiastical officers, to cultivate on all occasions the meekness and gentleness of Christ; and to exercise all the lenity, moderation, and forbearance which may be consistent with the purity of our institutions, and the due and firm administration of necessary discipline, the sacrifice of which we could not but deem too costly, even for peace.

“In conclusion, we say to brethren, ‘If there be, therefore, any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies, fulfill ye our joy, that ye be like minded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind. Let the peace of God rule in our hearts, to the which also we are called in one body; and let us be thankful. Whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report, if there be any virtue and any praise, let us think on these things. Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamor, and evil speaking be put away from us, with all malice. And ‘nay the God of love and peace be with us.’”

The following resolutions were adopted also, nearly unanimously: —

“Whereas an unhappy excitement has existed in some parts of our work, in consequence of the organization of what have been called Union Societies, for purposes, and under regulations, believed to be inconsistent with the peace and harmony of the Church; and in relation to the character of much of the matter contained in a certain periodical publication, called ‘Mutual Rights,’ in regard to which certain expulsions from the Church have taken place: and whereas this General Conference indulges a hope that a mutual desire may exist for conciliation and peace, and is desirous of leaving open a way for the accomplishment of so desirable an object, on safe and equitable principles; therefore, Resolved, &c.,

“1. That in view of the premises, and in the earnest hope that this measure may tend to promote this object, this General Conference affectionately advises that no further proceedings may be had, in any part of our work, against any minister or member of the Methodist Episcopal Church, on account of any past agency or concern in relation to the above-named periodical, or in relation to any Union Society as above mentioned.

“2. If any persons, expelled as aforesaid, feel free to concede that publications have appeared in said ‘Mutual Rights,’ the nature and character of which were unjustifiably inflammatory, and do not admit of vindication; and that others, though for want of proper information, or unintentionally, have yet, in fact, misrepresented individuals and facts, and that they regret these things: if it be voluntarily agreed, also, that the Union Societies above alluded to shall be abolished, and the periodical called ‘Mutual Rights’ be discontinued at the close of the Current volume, which shall be completed with due respect to the conciliatory and pacific design of this arrangement; then this General Conference does hereby give authority for the restoration to their ministry or membership respectively, in the Methodist Episcopal Church, of any person or persons so expelled, as aforesaid; provided this arrangement shall be mutually assented to by any individual or individuals so expelled, and also by the quarterly meeting conference, and the minister or preacher having the charge in any circuit or station within which any such expulsion may have taken place; and that no such minister or preacher shall be obliged, under this arrangement, to restore any such individual as leader of any class or classes, unless in his own discretion he shall judge it proper so to do; and provided also, that it be further mutually agreed that no other periodical publication, to be devoted to the same controversy, shall be established on either side; it being expressly understood, at the same time, that this, if agreed to, will be on the ground, not of any assumption of right to require this, but of mutual consent, for the restoration of peace; and that no individual will be hereby precluded from issuing any publication which he may judge proper, on his own responsibility. It is further understood, that any individual or individuals who may have withdrawn from the Methodist Episcopal Church, on account of any proceedings in relation to the premises, may also be restored, by mutual consent, under this arrangement, on the same principles as above stated.”

This decision, so far as the General Conference was concerned, set the question at rest, giving all concerned distinctly to understand that such a radical change in our government could not be allowed, and therefore all efforts directed to that end were and would be unavailing.

Some have expressed their surprise that the General Conference was so unwilling to yield to the voice of the people! The answer is, that the voice of the people was yielded to, so far as it could be heard and understood. It is believed that nine-tenths of our people throughout the United States, could they have been heard, were decidedly opposed to the innovations which were urged. They were not only contented with the present order of things, but they loved their institutions, venerated their ministers, and were astounded at the bold manner in which they were both assailed from the pulpit and the press. In resisting, therefore, the proposed changes, the conference believed it went with, and not against, the popular voice of the Church; and the result has proved that it was not in error; for it has been fully sustained in its course by the great body of preachers and people in all the annual conferences and throughout the entire Church; and it has, moreover, had the sanction of at least some of the “Reformers” themselves, who have become convinced that they calculated on a higher state of individual and social perfection than they have found attainable, and that it is much easier to shake and uproot established institutions than it is to raise up and render permanent a new order of things truth which should teach all revolutionists the necessity of caution and moderation in their measures.

It will be perceived that one of the resolutions in the above report proposed terms on which the expelled members might be restored to their former standing in the Church. It is not known, however, that any of them availed themselves of this privilege; but, on the contrary, a very considerable number, both in Baltimore and other places, withdrew from the Church, and put themselves under the wing of “reform;” while a few, who still proved refractory, in Cincinnati, Lynchburg, and some other places, were tried and expelled. The exact number lost to the Church I have not been able to ascertain; but by turning to the Minutes of our conferences, and comparing the numbers for 1828 with those for 1829, I find the increase of members to be 29,305, and of preachers 175; for 1830 the increase of members is 28,257, and of preachers 83. And as this is quite equal to the usual increase from one year to another, the secession could not have included a great number of either members or preachers. In the cities of New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, and Cincinnati were found the greatest number of “Reformers.” Here they organized churches and established congregations in conformity to their improved plan of procedure: but it is believed that in all these as their influence has been on the wane for some time, and that, while several have returned to the Church which they had left, others have become wear and vexed with “reform,” being convinced that they calculated too highly on the perfection of human nature not to be disappointed in their expectations.