Nathan Bangs · 24 of 29

Chapter 15. The General Conference of 1840 · Part 2

“The government of the Methodist Episcopal Church is peculiarly constructed. It is widely different from our civil organization. The General Conference is the only legislative body recognized in our ecclesiastical system, and from it originates the authority of the entire executive administration. The exclusive power to create annual conferences, and to increase or diminish their number, rests with this body. No annual conference has authority or right to make any rule of discipline for the Church, either within its own bounds or elsewhere. No one has the power to elect its own president, except in a special case, pointed out, and provided for, by the General Conference. Whatever may be the number of the annual conferences, they are all organized on the same plan, are all governed by the same laws, and all have identically the same rights, powers, and privileges. These powers, and rights, and privileges are not derived from themselves, but from the body which originated them. And the book of Discipline, containing the rules of the General Conference, is the only charter of their rights, and directory of their duties, as official bodies. The general superintendents are elected by the General Conference, and responsible to it for the discharge of the duties of their office. They are constituted, by virtue of their office, president of the annual conferences, with authority to appoint the time of holding them; with a prudential provision that they shall allow each conference to sit at least one week, that the important business prescribed in the form of Discipline may not be hurried through in such a manner as to affect injuriously the interests of the Church. The primary objects of their official department in the Church were, as we believe, to preserve, in the mot effectual manner, an itinerant ministry; to maintain a uniformity in the administration of the government and discipline in every department, and that the unity of the whole body might be preserved. But how, we would ask, can these important ends be accomplished, if each annual conference possesses the rights mid powers set forth in the foregoing summary? Is it to be supposed, that twenty-eight constitutional judges of ecclesiastical law, and these, too, not individuals of age and experience, who have had time and means to thoroughly investigate, and analyze, and collate the system; but official bodies, many members of which are young and inexperienced, and without the opportunity or necessary helps for such researches, and without consultation with each other on the points to be decided, will settle different questions of law with such agreement as to have no material conflict between their legal decisions. Is it not greatly to be feared, that, with such a system of ecclesiastical jurisprudence, what might be law in Georgia might be no law in New England? that what might be orthodoxy in one conference might be heresy in another? Where, then, would be the identity of the law, the uniformity of its administration, or the unity and peace of the Church?

“A well-digested system of collegiate education, under the direction and control of the General Conference, is, in our opinion, loudly called for by the present state of the Church, and by our widely extended and extending influence, as a religious denomination. Such a system is of such vast importance, in connection with the general principles and designs of Methodism, as to render the policy of submitting its direction and superintendence to sectional control, to say the least, very doubtful. For many years, the state of the Church was such in these States as to render it impracticable to accomplish much in the cause of education, any further than as we were associated with other bodies, or were connected with the institutions of the country. And it is not to be denied that there existed among us, to a considerable extent, even down to a recent date, strong opposition to commencing this important enterprise among ourselves. But during the last twenty years, the spirit of inquiry has been wakened up, and a very general interest excited on this subject; and the energies and means of our preachers and people have been employed to a very considerable extent in the promotion of such a worthy and noble object. What appears to be especially necessary at the present crisis is a well-organized system which shall give the best direction to those energies and means. It will not be at all surprising to men who have made themselves acquainted with the former and present condition of the Methodist Church, relative to the promotion of literature, that there should be at the present time a spirit of zeal and enterprise in operation, which, if not guided by the soundest principles of wisdom and policy, and concentrated in a general and harmonious system, may fail to accomplish the desirable and important object, and ultimately result in injurious reaction. This can hardly fail to be the case, if colleges, or other high institutions of learning, which must depend upon other means of support than the revenues arising from tuiition, are multiplied beyond the available means necessary for their adequate and permanent endowment. And it is to be feared that in this respect we are not entirely free from error and danger. We scarcely need to say to this enlightened and experienced body of ministers, many of whom are familiar with the polity and fiscal concerns of literary institutions, that such of them as we have just named cannot be considered in a safe and sound condition in regard to their efficiency and perpetuity, until they realize a revenue from permanent endowment entirely sufficient to support their faculties, leaving the fund arising from tuition to meet contingent expenses. If this is a correct rule of calculation in regard to the safety of collegiate institutions, it is very doubtful whether any of our colleges or universities can be considered permanently secure. It appears to us that the time has arrived for the General Conference to take this subject into their deliberate consideration, and adopt such measures as, in their wisdom, may the most effectually secure our colleges already in operation from liability to failure, and guard against the erection of others till sufficient available means are secured to place them on a firm foundation. The circumstance that there are members of the faculties or boards of trustees of nearly, if not quite all our colleges, present as representatives in this body, is, in our opinion, peculiarly favorable to such a design. We cannot too deeply impress upon your minds the importance of preserving in our own power the direction and control of the system of collegiate and theological education in the Church. Perhaps a more favorable opportunity than your present session will seldom, if ever, occur, for devising and adopting a judicious and uniform course of literary and moral discipline in all the collegiate institutions under our superintendence. And we will not withhold our solemn conviction, that any course of study in a Methodist college or university would be essentially defective if it did not embrace the Bible — the most ancient, the most learned, and the most important book in the world. As a Christian community, all our institutions of learning should be sanctuaries of theological science. Do we send our sons to explore the regions of science and literature, merely, as did idolatrous Greece and Rome, to prepare them for the senate, the forum, or the field? Do we not rather desire that they may be qualified by mental and moral improvement, to diffuse, in every circle of society in which they may move, the influence of the enlightening, peaceful, and benevolent principles of our holy religion? Do we intend them for professional life? In what profession can they be employed in a Christian country in which the Bible is not a most important text book? Are not the civil governments of Christendom based upon it? Is it not the fountain of law, and the charter of rights? When do you see the statesman, the judge, or the advocate, more clear, convincing, authoritative, or sublime, than when he appeals to its doctrines, morals, or sanctions? Do we desire our sons to practice the healing art? Would we send them forth to mingle in scenes of wretchedness and suffering without the knowledge of those divine truths taught by Him who went about doing good, and healing all manner of diseases? In a word, we cannot but believe that the doctrines, history, evidences, and morals of revelation, should be regarded as forming one of the most important departments in our system of collegiate education. We are aware that such a feature in the course of study in our colleges would subject them to the too common objection of being theological seminaries. This objection would certainly come with more grace from the lips of infidels than from the tongues or pens of professed believers in the divine authenticity of the Christian revelation. While, in our opinion, the science of the word of God should be a paramount branch of instruction in our literary institutions, we desire not to be understood as recommending the establishment of ‘Theological Seminaries,’ in the common acceptation of the term; that is, for the special purpose of educating men for the work of the gospel ministry. We feel, with many enlightened Christians and able ministers, both in our own and other religious denominations, the importance of an able and efficient ministry. Nor are we unapprised of the great advantages of a thorough education to those whose business it is to preach ‘Christ and him crucified.’ But we are free to acknowledge that the policy of establishing schools of divinity for the exclusive purpose of preparing young men for the sacred office, as for a profession, is, in our opinion, to say the least, of doubtful authority and expedience. The history of such institutions, from their earliest establishment, admonishes us, that the speculators of human science have but too frequently obscured and adulterated the doctrines of the revelation of God; and that, in many cases, where they have been commenced on evangelical ground, in their onward course they have wandered into the wilderness of metaphysical disquisitions, or been lost in the still darker regions of ‘rational Christianity.’ When the history, doctrines, evidences, and duties of the revelation of God shall form a distinct and primary department of study in our institutions of learning our children be dedicated to God, and trained up in his knowledge and fear, and the whole Church united in devout and fervent prayer that God would raise up, and send forth into his vineyard, men of his own selection, and Scriptural proofs be required of those who profess to be called to preach the gospel, it is believed that human agency will have reached its legitimate bounds in the premises, and that this great concern will be perfectly secure with the supreme Head of the church, to whom alone belongs the authority to perpetuate the ministry of his gospel to the end of the world. But should this body differ from us with regard to the expediency of establishing institutions for theological education separate from our literary establishments, and for the exclusive purpose of preparing the students for the work of the ministry, we cannot too strongly recommend to you the propriety and importance of having the whole subject under the direction and control of the General Conference. We are well persuaded that your wisdom and experience will lead you to apprehend the great impropriety of sectional institutions in the Church for such a purpose. To intrust a matter of such vast moment to a self-organized association, or to an annual conference, or

“A regular and uniform course of study for the under graduates in the ministry has, in our judgment, a special claim to your attention at your present session. At a former session it was made the duty of the general superintendents to point out a course of study for the candidates, preparatory to their admission into full connection, with discretionary privilege of appointing a committee for that purpose. By this rule, no provision is made for a course of study for preachers, for the two years previous to their induction to the office of elders. This has been thought to be a defect in the system, and at the request of many of the annual conferences, an advisory course has been prepared, embracing these two years. The result, as far as we have knowledge, has been very advantageous in the improvement of the ministry. And we recommend to the General Conference to extend the course so as to embrace the whole period from the time of admission on trial, until the full powers of the ministry are conferred. The situation of the superintendents is such, in visiting all parts of the work, extending over all the states and territories, as to render it extremely difficult, and for the most part impracticable, without great labor and expense, to meet for consultation with each other on this, or any other, important interest of the church; and their duties are so various and weighty as to incline them to the opinion, that the great object contemplated in this provision would be better accomplished by a uniform course of study prepared by this body, and published in our form of Discipline. The local ministry is to be regarded as forming an important department in our system. They are truly helpers in the work of the Lord. As such we should always esteem them. And nothing should be neglected which has a tendency to preserve and strengthen the bonds of affection and confidence between them and the itinerant connection. Many of this useful class of ministers have deeply felt the necessity of a regular system of study, adapted, as far as practicable, to the condition and circumstances of local preachers, embracing studies preparatory to their receiving license, and extending to the time of their graduating to the office of elders. Many and great advantages might doubtless be derived from such a course, judiciously formed in adaptation to the circumstances of our local brethren, whose time must necessarily be employed, to a greater or less extent, in secular avocations. We recommend the subject to your deliberate consideration.

“We invite your particular attention to a review of the process prescribed in the Discipline in the provision for locating a preacher without his consent. The course directed in case of the trial of a superannuated preacher, residing without the bounds of the annual conference of which he is a member, is found to be attended with great inconvenience, and is liable to result in injustice to the accused, or injury to the church. A considerable number of superannuated preachers (and the number is constantly increasing) have their residence many hundred miles from the bounds of the conferences where they hold their membership. The consequence is, that it repeatedly occurs, that the communications which the Discipline requires them to make to their own conference fail to be received, in which cases the passage of their characters may be involved, and they are liable to be deprived of their regular allowance, even when they sustain the fairest reputation, and when they are in real need of the amount to which they have a lawful claim. But these points are far from being the most important, though they are certainly entitled to consideration. The subject embraces deeper interests, both to the individuals and to the church. In case of the trial of a superannuated preacher, within the bounds of a conference remote from his own, as provided for in the Discipline, there are several difficulties which experiment can hardly fail to make obvious. It is provided that the presiding elder, in whose district the accused may reside, shall bring him to trial, and in case of suspension, shall forward to the annual conference of which the accused is a member, exact minutes of the charges, testimony, and decision of the committee in the ease, and on the testimony thus furnished, the conference must decide. The great difficulty of deciding important cases equitably, from minutes of testimony thus taken, is well known. This difficulty is increased in proportion to the complexity of the ease, and the conflicting character of the testimony. Add to this, that it will rarely be practicable in such cases for the accuser and accused to be brought face to face, or for either to be present to plead in the premises. Distance of place, length of time required, and the labor and expense involved, would, in most eases, form an insurmountable obstacle to the parties being heard before the tribunal where judgment must finally be given. And, further, in cases of this kind it must frequently happen that the testimony will be voluminous, and the difficulty and expense of its transmission very considerable. And finally, documents forwarded a great distance are very liable to fail of reaching their place of destination, in which case the administration of justice might be delayed, if not finally defeated, and the church suffer reproach. Besides, the present provision in our Discipline is, in our opinion, too liable to abuse. Should any one of the annual conferences think it proper to enter upon any favorite enterprise, for the success of which they might conceive it necessary to have agents operating without their own bounds, it would be no difficult matter to place such brethren as would very well serve their case in a superannuated relation. And if the object to be accomplished was of very deep interest, the liability of their agents to trial and suspension by a committee would hardly form an obstacle, especially as the final decision of the case would be in their own power. In view of all the difficulties to which the present provision is liable, we are inclined to the opinion that a different course might be devised, by which the ends of justice might be obtained more readily, and with greater certainty, and in perfect accordance with our system of government. As the trial and expulsion of a preacher is not to be regarded simply as a process affecting only his relation to the conference where he belongs, but is to all intents and purposes an expulsion from the itinerant connection, and from the Church; and as the same rules for the trial of preachers must govern the action of all the annual conferences, and the same rights and privileges are secured to all by the constitution and Discipline of the Church, we are not apprised of any valid objection to the trial of traveling preachers by the annual conferences in which they may reside at the time of the occurrence of the offense of which they are accused. Indeed, it would seem that the principle of constitutionality in such a course is fully recognized by the General Conference in the present provision: — For if a presiding elder may have jurisdiction over a superannuated preacher, residing within his district, and out of the bounds of his own conference, so as to suspend him from all official acts and privileges, which is the utmost extent of his authority in regard to the preachers stationed in his district, it will be difficult, it is presumed, to raise valid constitutional objections to the jurisdiction of an annual conference to prosecute such cases to a final issue. And it can hardly be doubted that these two great advantages would be secured by such a process — it would secure a more ready and easy access to testimony, especially such as might be presumptive and circumstantial, on which, it is well known, the final issue may materially depend, and afford the accuser and accused the opportunity of appearing face to face, to plead their own cause. And we respectfully suggest whether a provision, in some respects similar, might not be made for the trial of local preachers in the circuits where they are charged with committing offenses. With these views we submit the subject to your consideration. Since the General Conference provided for the appointment of preachers to the charge of seminaries of learning, many institutions for the education of youth of both sexes have sprung up, preferring their claims to such appointments. Most of these schools have been originated by individuals, or associations of individuals, having no other connection with an annual conference than such as consists in the courtesy of patronage, connected with the annual visits of a committee appointed for the purpose of attending their examinations, and reporting the results.

“In discharging the important and responsible duties of their office, your superintendents have not been so happy as to avoid difficulty from this department; and in some eases their convictions of the limits of their authority, in connection with their judgment of expediency, have compelled them, though with the most friendly reciprocal feelings, to differ from the views, and decline to meet the express wishes of annual conferences. And it is with the most sincere satisfaction that they refer their opinions and acts to this body, that if in error, as they are certainly liable to be, they may be corrected, and the whole body harmonized on all material points. There are two distinct cases in which the superintendents are authorized to appoint preachers to institutions of learning. The one respects such institutions as are or may be under our superintendence, and the other, such as are not. Out of these cases several important questions have originated, which have been the ground of the difference of opinion of which we have just spoken. These questions may be stated as follows: 1. What is necessary to constitute a seminary of learning so far under our superintendence as to bring it fairly within the rule of the General Conference authorizing the appointment of a preacher to it? 2. What classes of literary institutions was it the intention of the General Conference to embrace in this provision? 3. In providing for the appointment of preachers to ’seminaries of learning’ not under our superintendence, was it the intention of the General Conference to include all classes of literary institutions, if the appointment was requested by an annual conference, or to limit the appointment to seminaries of collegiate literature? 4, Is an appointment under this provision discretionary with the superintendent, or does the request of an annual conference create an obligation as a matter of duty, as in the case of appointments in the districts and circuits? There are principles and interests, in our opinion, involved in these questions which have a special claim to the deliberate consideration of this body. From the numerous applications which are made for the appointment of preachers, to be school teachers and agents for various institutions, it is to be feared that unless the subject be clearly defined, and carefully guarded by suitable limitations and restrictions, our grand itinerant system may be impaired by a virtual location of many valuable ministers, and the Church suffer in spiritual interests from the loss of useful labors. There are at this time about seventy of the effective traveling preachers employed as presidents, professors, principals, and teachers in literary institutions, and as agents devoted to their interests. These ministers are selected from the several annual conferences with reference to their qualifications for the duties of their station. They are men of talent, science, and learning, and many of them ministers of age and experience. And the calls for such appointments are constantly multiplying on our hands. While we readily and thankfully acknowledge the usefulness of brethren employed in this important department of our great work, we must be permitted to doubt whether the cause of God might not be more effectually and extensively promoted, if, to say the least, a very large proportion of these able ministers of Christ were exclusively devoted to the work of the gospel ministry. And we respectfully suggest the inquiry, whether pious and learned men may not be obtained from the local ministry, or from the official or private membership, well qualified as teachers to advance the cause of education, and by this means bring into the regular field of itinerant labor a great weight of talent and influence now almost confined to the precincts of academies and colleges.

“At the last session of this body the publication of three religious periodicals was provided for, in addition to those previously established. They have now, it is presumed, been before the religious community a sufficient time to enable you to form an opinion of their intrinsic merits as official papers, going forth to an enlightened and reading people, under the authority and patronage of the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and of their usefulness in promoting the great enterprise in which we are engaged, by spreading abroad the light of gospel truth, advancing the interests of our important institutions, and strengthening the bonds of peace and harmony in the Church. The influence of the periodical press, either for weal or woe, is too well ascertained to render it necessary for this body to be reminded of the importance of throwing around it, so far as it is under their direction and patronage, those safeguards which shall preserve its unity, and render it subservient to the promotion of intellectual, moral, and religious improvement. We have no doubt but you will agree with us in sentiment, that our religious papers should take no part in the political warfare of the day — that they should never interfere with the civil institutions of the country that they should promote, as far as practicable, quietness, peace; and love, among all Christian people, and especially in the Church by whose authority and patronage they exist, and whose interests they are particularly designed to serve. Whatever might have been the views of the General Conference at the time of the establishment of these papers, it did not occur to the superintendents that they were to be mediums of mercantile or professional advertisements; and we respectfully submit it to your enlightened judgment, whether it is consistent with the character of the Church, and the grand designs of her religious institutions, among which the periodical press is one of the most efficient, to make them such. We are not apprised whether recourse has been had to this measure from courtesy to friends in secular occupations, or for the purpose of realizing funds sufficient to meet the expenses of publication. But with due deference, we must be permitted to doubt whether the credit or the general interests of the Methodist Church will be promoted by the publication of a paper under the official sanction of the General Conference, which cannot obtain a patronage sufficient to meet its expenses without devoting its columns to business advertisements. Your timely and judicious advice to the annual conferences, not to establish any more conference papers, has been respectfully regarded, so that no new paper has been published by any conference for the last four years, except one, which has since been discontinued, and it is believed there is an increasing conviction in the conferences generally, that it is inexpedient to publish such papers. Several papers, however, are published, assuming to be in the interests of the Methodist Church, and edited by Methodist preachers, and which are patronized to a considerable extent by many members of several annual conferences. We are already admonished by the history of the past, how easy it is, under the popular pretext of the right of free discussion, to disturb the harmony and peace of the Church, stir up strife and contention, alienate the affection of brethren from each other, and finally injure the cause of Christ.

“Applications from members and ministers of other churches, with whom we are in Christian fellowship, are becoming more frequent, and a variety of opinions being entertained by preachers of age and experience, with regard to the manner of receiving them among us, the Discipline making no special provision in the case, we have thought it advisable to bring the subject before you, with a view to the adopting a course which may harmonize the views and official action of all concerned, and manifest that spirit of Christian charity which should always abound in the church of Christ. It is only necessary for us to lay before you the different opinions entertained on the subject, which, from the character and number of those who hold them, are certainly entitled to respectful attention. With regard to private members of other churches who make application for membership with us, it has been maintained on the one hand, that they should be admitted and remain on trial for six months, as the Discipline provides, before they are received into the Church; and on the other, that the circumstance of their being regular and approved members of other churches, with which we are in Christian fellowship, virtually answers the essential ends of the provision for a probationer, and consequently that they should be received into the Church without requiring such trial. The views which are entertained with respect to receiving ministers from other churches are not capable of so simple a definition. But they may be summed up as follows: — Many are of the opinion, that, in common with all other persons, they should be admitted on trial, and pass a probation of six months, before they are received as members of the Church. That, being received as such, they should obtain recommendation and license and graduate in the ministry, in strict conformity to the letter of the Discipline, without regard to their ordination by the constitutional authorities of the churches from which they came. Others are of the opinion that, coming to us with accredited testimonials of their Christian piety and official standing, and giving satisfaction, on examination as the Discipline directs, with respect to their belief in our doctrine, and approval of our discipline, they should be immediately received and accredited as ministers among us. And that on answering the questions, and taking upon them, the solemn obligations of our ordination service, they should receive credentials of authority to administer the holy sacraments without the imposition of hands repeated by us, unless they themselves should incline to it. These conflicting opinions, in connection with the fact that a number of ministers have been received among us in conformity to the latter view, seem to require that the General Conference take such order upon it as in their wisdom may be best calculated to produce unanimity of sentiment and action, and promote Christian confidence and affection between ourselves and other religious denominations, without impairing any fundamental principle of our order and government