Nathan Bangs · 26 of 29

Chapter 15. The General Conference of 1840 · Part 4

As to the other amendments which are proposed, they appear to us so obviously necessary for the more perfect and equitable operation of the principles of the society as to need no special arguments to enforce them. Leaving them therefore to be explained by those of our brethren who compose a part of your body, and who fully comprehend our views, and the reasons on which they are founded, we will only say that we shall cheerfully acquiesce in whatever disposition you may be pleased to make of them, believing, as we do, that the General Conference is equally interested with us in preserving the integrity and promoting the prosperity of the society.

There is another subject connected with the interests of this society which we beg permission to present to your consideration. We have been much gratified to find that all the annual conferences, in making provision for a suitable celebration of the centenary of Methodism, have devoted a portion of the money which shall be realized on that occasion to the cause of missions, most of whom, we believe, leaving the final disposition of it to the General Conference. That this celebration has had a most happy effect upon the cause of Methodism, we have abundant reason to believe not only in raising money for the various objects specified, but also and more especially in reviving true religion among us.

“For some time past we have felt the need, for the prosecution of our great and benevolent objects, of having mission premises procured, and suitable buildings erected, for the accommodation of our local offices, and the meetings of the managers, &c. An estimate of the expense is herewith presented. Should your venerable body concur with us on the propriety of securing such premises, it would not only accommodate the society, and be a saving of expense, but would stand as a lasting monument of the liberality of the donors, and tell to posterity what was done on the one hundredth year of Methodism in behalf of missions. We therefore confidently rely on the approbation of the General Conference of this measure, and the more so as it was fully understood at the time the division of the avails of the centenary collections was made that this object was in contemplation by the managers of the Missionary Society.

“The following statement will exhibit, at one view, the amount received and expended during the past four years; for the particulars of which we refer to the treasurer’s account, as published in the annual reports, herewith presented: —

1837: Received $62,749.01; Expended 66,536.85

1838: Received $90,105.36; Expended $95,110.75

1839: Received $135,521.94; Expended $103,664.58

1840: Received $116,941.90; Expended $146,498.58.

From this it will be seen that there has been a rapid increase to the resources of the society from one year to another, thereby enabling us to meet the enlarged demands upon our treasury created by the extension of the fields of missionary labors. We only add, that, relying upon the good providence of God for direction and aid in urging the important trusts committed to our charge, and upon the wisdom and integrity of the General Conference for devising the most efficient means for carrying into practical effect the general and benevolent objects of the society, we once more pledge ourselves to the faithful performance of our duties, according to the light and ability which God may be graciously pleased to vouchsafe unto us.”

The following was also read and referred: —

“Report of the Committee on the Journal of the Corresponding Secretary of the Missionary Society of the Methodist Episcopal Church

“The committee to whom was referred the subject of the office of the corresponding secretary, his journal, &c., respectfully report:

“That it appears by the records submitted to their examination, that the duties of the corresponding secretary have been extensive and arduous both at home and abroad, demonstrating the necessity of having such an officer, as represented by the board to the last General Conference. In addition to the preparation of the annual reports and other documentary manuscripts, the correspondence of the society exhibits more than five hundred official letters to missionaries, &c.; and during the last four years, we learn from the journal kept by the present officer, that besides the duties of corresponding secretary in the office at home, and the preparation of multiplied reports for publication in the Advocate, he has traveled in the service of the society more than eleven thousand miles, in visiting ten annual conferences, some of them twice and thrice, and in holding missionary meetings in ten different states in the Union. “It also appears that he has delivered one hundred and thirty-four missionary sermons and addresses, in various parts of the country, and been directly instrumental in this way of bringing into the treasury the amount of $13,427. How far his labors and writings have been further tributary to the increase of our funds, we have no data upon which to make the estimate. We invite attention, however, to the increased contributions to our treasury since his appointment, as affording evidence that the cause is improving annually under the present system of operations. During the first year of his appointment, the receipts were $62,749 — the second, $90,105.36 — the third, $135,521.94 — and this, too, notwithstanding the unprecedented prostration of the times. The amount of the fourth and last year is not yet ascertained, but will be found comparatively large, though less than the previous year, because of the special efforts made for the centenary fund, a portion of which is destined to our treasury.

“From a review of the whole subject, your committee respectfully submit the following resolutions to be communicated to the next General Conference: —

“Resolved, That the experience of the last four years has amply confirmed the propriety of the appointment of a corresponding secretary devoted to the interests of this society, as prayed for at the last General Conference.

“Resolved, That this board bear their united testimony to the diligent, faithful, and successful performance of the duties of the office by the present incumbent; and in view of his long experience in the service of the board, we shall rejoice at his reappointment by the next General Conference.”

A number of petitions and memorials were received on a variety of subjects, particularly in reference to slavery and abolitionism, all of which were referred to appropriate committees. It seems that among these, some of the petitioners were not content with asking simply for the abolition of slavery instantly and unconditionally, but they also coupled with it a desire for an alteration in some important features of our Church organization. This latter subject was referred to the committee on the itinerancy, who presented the following report, which was concurred in by the conference:

“The committee to whom were referred the petitions and memorials on the subjects of a moderate episcopacy, the election of presiding elders by the annual conferences, and a lay delegation in the General Conference, have bestowed upon the matters submitted to them the attention which they were conceived to merit, and submit the following report:

“It appears the petitions and memorials on these subjects have been obtained by a concerted operation, under the direction of some single intellect, inasmuch as nearly every petition on any one of these subjects is not only substantially, but literally the same — most of them being printed slips, cut from some newspaper, and where they are written, literal copies of such as are printed. This fact induced a conviction in the minds of the committee that these petitions and memorials are the result of agitation, and not of original dissatisfaction on the part of most of the persons signing those petitions and memorials; and, therefore, by no means deserving the same consideration as if they were the spontaneous expression of the dissatisfaction of the petitioners and memorialists. But if it were otherwise, the number of petitioners is so very small in proportion to the entire membership of the Methodist Episcopal Church, that, in the opinion of the committee, these memorials and petitions, regarding not individual grievances, but general interests, are entitled to no other consideration than that to which they are entitled as mere arguments in favor of the courses indicated. And as the committee have not seen reason to attach much importance to them in this light, they are not prepared to recommend the measures which are called for by these petitions and memorials.

“Moreover, the committee, having witnessed the operation of the present system of Methodist Episcopal Church government, and being persuaded that its operation has been eminently useful, would require the most cogent reasons to induce them to recommend changes so important and so fundamental; especially as two, at least, of these changes have been, after long, grave, and deliberate consideration, recently declined by the Methodist Episcopal Church. The committee refer to the proceedings of the General Conference of 1828, for the light in which the election of presiding elders by the annual conferences, and a lay delegation in the General Conference, was then viewed; and the decision which was made by the Church on these subjects.

“With the views above presented, the committee can do no other than present the following resolution, viz.: —

“Resolved, That it is not expedient to change the form of our Church government in any of the matters suggested in the petitions and memorials which have been under the consideration of the committee.”

While this report was under consideration, the following conversation took place between some members of the conference and the Rev. Mr. Newton, the respected representative from England.

Having expressed his willingness to answer any questions which might be put to him in reference to the subjects then under discussion, he was asked,

“Whether there was any authority among them equal in extent of power to our superintendency?

“Rev. Mr. Newton. — We have the thing without the name. The president of our conference exercises more authority than your venerable bishops. He can, at any time, arrest debate by his decision; and, although Mr. Wesley did not assume the title, he claimed and exercised the prerogatives of a Christian bishop. Our chairmen of districts are, in their sphere, also representatives of the president.

“Rev. Mr. Horton asked, whether the presidents were not elected annually?

“Rev. Mr. Newton. — Unquestionably they are; but the president never dies.

“Is not the chairman of the district also elected annually? asked Rev. Mr. Horton.

“Unquestionably he is, but he never dies, replied Rev. Mr. Newton.

“The chair also inquired of Rev. Mr. Newton, whether the president of the British Conference did not decide many questions which we decide by the vote of the conference; to which he received an affirmative response.

“Rev. Mr. Horton also asked, how long the chairman of the district might retain his office? to which he received the reply, that it depended on circumstances. He always deferred to seniority in case of the presence of a more aged minister. This was generally, if not invariably and universally done.”

It is due, perhaps, to the interests of truth, as well as to the character of our people, to say, that the dissatisfaction evinced by these memorials restricted to comparatively few, the great majority of our preachers and people being entirely satisfied with our general economy, and in love with our peculiar doctrines and features of Church government, and were therefore heartily sickened with the perpetual complainings of a few restless individuals respecting tyranny and oppression.

On the subject of education the committee reported as follows on those parts of the bishops’ address which referred to an increase in the number of literary institutions a general course of instruction, and to Biblical knowledge and ecclesiastical history, the episcopal power of stationing preachers in seminaries of learning, and the zealous of their support: —

“Your committee believe that the advantages of education are most widely diffused and certainly secured, by multiplying institutions of learning within proper limits, but it is obvious enough that if their number is too great to admit of their being competently endowed, the ends of their creation must be defeated; it is certainly wise policy, therefore, for the different annual conferences to secure the permanence of those already established, before they attempt to found others.

“In regard to the course of studies to be pursued in our literary institutions, to which the attention of the committee has been called in the address of the bishops, and by a resolution of the Baltimore conference, they believe that it would be inexpedient to lay down a course which should be pursued in all cases. The board of trustees and faculties will desire to exercise some control in this matter, and it seems to your committee proper that they should. There is a wide and allowable difference of opinion upon the subject, and an attempt to produce uniformity would be most likely to cause dissatisfaction, without accomplishing the object; but your committee do not hesitate to recommend that the commonly received English version of the Bible should be introduced into every school and college, and that it should be studied according to some system which may be adopted by the different boards of instruction in their several institutions, and in those institutions which embrace the ancient languages, they recommend that the Old and New Testaments be studied in the originals critically; they also recommend that the ‘Evidences of Christianity,’ and ‘Ecclesiastical history,’ constitute a part of the regular course in all our colleges and universities. When it is remembered that heathen mythology, Roman and Grecian archeology, and profane history, enter into the regular course of most literary institutions, and are believed to be essential to the education of an accomplished scholar, it can need but little argument to prove that knowledge, so much more important, should be imparted to the student.

“Your committee recommend that in all the universities and colleges under the control of the Church, the instruction given in every department of science and literature, in their broadest sense, be full and thorough. Some arguments may be urged in favor of a limited education, none can have weight in favor of a superficial one; a limited education is better than none, and one who cannot take a full course may be greatly profited by a partial one, provided it is thorough; but those who are superficially taught, have lost their time and money, and at the close of their collegiate education are helpless in themselves, and useless to the community. It is a happy omen to the world, that the Church generally is awaking to the sense of its responsibility in providing for, sustaining, and directing public education. It must not shrink from this responsibility; it cannot without hazarding the most fatal consequences. Mind, energized by its own exertions, and furnished from the armories of science, unless controlled by the restraints, and guided by the counsels of religion, becomes the most powerful auxiliary which infidelity and vice ever won over to their cause; while on the other hand, the intellect, ‘brought into captivity to the obedience of Christ,’ august in the integrity of its object, and the directness of its means, vigorous from the concentration of power to one end, and invigorated by the special blessing of God, given to those who seek to honor him, when supplied with the argument which the learning of this age furnishes, becomes a champion for Christianity, before whom infidelity, superstition, and bigotry must cower and fall. It is readily conceded that principles of morality should be taught as soon as they can be understood. It inevitably follows that religion, which furnishes the only incontrovertible arguments to prove the obligations of morality, and the only sanction which can enforce its precepts, should be taught still earlier; and that all knowledge which is afterward imparted should be harmonized with it. The neglect of this obvious duty has caused the strange result that education fostered infidelity. It first grew out of the efforts made to improve the gross absurdities and foul deformities of a godless and miscalled Christianity upon the mind; and, unhappily, has been suffered to continue after the cause ceased to exist. It should be so no longer. Science, in its conventional sense, is a knowledge of the works of God, the laws which govern them, their relations to each other, and their combination into one harmonious whole. Its discoveries demonstrate the existence of a God; and learning, in its widest sense, arranging and concentrating the facts, proves, by a circumstantiality of evidence and a directness of inference which are irresistible, that this God is the God of the Bible, the Father of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ; and the time has come when, if the Church is true to her trust, learning will be the great agent in promoting religion, by every one of her ten thousand instrumentalities, and over all the face of this earth. In view of the premises, your committee believe that no jealousy should be felt in relation to the calls which our schools and colleges are making upon the ministry for teachers and professors. The number required will be necessarily small in proportion to the whole number of ministers, and when they are otherwise properly qualified, they are undoubtedly the most suitable persons to be employed in the business of education. No fear need be entertained lest their labor should be too light, or that they should become effeminate and self-indulgent; a little experience would soon remove such apprehensions. Your committee can see no good reason why preachers on trial should not be appointed to schools and colleges.

“Your committee do not believe that the conference should make any regulation controlling or limiting the episcopal power of stationing the preachers, and in answer, therefore, to the question asked by the superintendents in their address, whether an appointment to seminaries of learning, when an annual conference requests such a one to be made, renders it obligatory upon the bishop to comply with the request? would recommend that it be answered in the negative.

“In conclusion, your committee, in view of the vast importance of this great trust committed to the Church, for the purpose of making a permanent provision for sustaining our literary institutions, recommend the adoption of the following resolution, viz.: —

“Resolved, That any annual conference may direct public collections to be taken up by the preachers in charge of circuits and stations, in each society, once in each year, for the purpose of sustaining the literary institutions ‘under its control or patronage, if it should judge it expedient so to do, or may adopt such other measure for that end, as may seem to the members thereof most advisable.”

As this report was very unanimously adopted by the conference, we may consider the present policy in respect to establishing colleges and academies as settled, and that it is highly proper that Biblical instruction should be adopted in all our seminaries of learning.

Questions of administration had been mooted in some of the annual conferences, on which the bishops and many members of these conferences had disagreed respecting the power of the episcopacy to decide points of law, to refuse putting certain questions to vote which the presiding officer might consider unconstitutional. To settle these questions, the subject had been submitted to the conference, and the following was the result of its deliberations in reference to it:

That it is the province of the bishop “to decide all questions of law in an annual conference, subject to an appeal to the General Conference; but in all cases the application of law is with the conference.”

That it belongs to the president of a quarterly meeting “to decide all questions of law in the quarterly meeting conference, subject to an appeal to the president of the next annual conference; but in all cases the application of the law shall be with the conference.”

These words, “application of the law,” appeared involved in obscurity to some. The meaning is, I apprehend, that the conference, after the law has been explained, is to judge of its applicability to the particular case under consideration. Suppose a man is accused of an act of immorality; the president of a conference explains the law, its nature and penalty in reference to the particular act of immorality of which the person is accused; the members of the conference then, as the judges or jurors in the case, examine into the facts, hear witnesses, decide upon the guilt or innocence of the accused; and then apply the law to that particular case, and if found guilty, bring in their verdict accordingly, while the presiding judge passes the sentence of condemnation. Here the law is applied to, or brought to bear on that particular person, according to its legitimate intent and meaning, the presiding officer being responsible for the interpretation, and the conference for the application of the law to the case in hand.

The conference also decided that the president of an annual or a quarterly meeting conference had a right to decline putting a motion or resolution to vote, if he considered it foreign to the proper business of a conference, or inconsistent with constitutional provisions; and also to adjourn a conference without a formal vote.

In respect to slavery and abolitionism, though these subjects were much discussed, referred to a committee, and reported on, there was no final action of the conference on either of them, but all things remain as they were, both in the Discipline and the resolutions of the conference.

There was one other subject which excited a deep interest. An appeal had come up from a member of the Missouri conference, appealing from a decision of said conference condemning him for admitting colored testimony against a white person. The appeal was sustained, and the decision of the Missouri conference reversed. As this reversal was considered as sanctioning the practice of admitting colored testimony against the character of a white person, the following resolution, offered by Dr. Few, of the Georgia conference, after a strong and protracted debate, was adopted: —

“That it is inexpedient and unjustifiable for any preacher to permit colored persons to give testimony against white persons, in any state where they are denied that privilege in trials of law.”

“The passage of this resolution gave great dissatisfaction to many members of the conference; and after a variety of expedients had been resorted to, in vain, to obviate the difficulties which seemed to grow out of it, Bishop Soule offered the following resolutions, which were adopted by a great majority, ninety-seven voting in the affirmative and twenty-seven in the negative: —

Resolved, That in the decision of this conference in the case of the appeal of Rev. Silas Comfort, it is not intended to express or imply that the testimony of colored persons against white persons, in Church trials, is either expedient or justifiable in any of the slave-holding states or territories where the civil laws prohibit such testimony in trials at law.

Resolved, That it is not the intention of this conference, in the adoption of the resolution of Rev. Ignatius A. Few, of Georgia, in regard to the admission of the testimony of colored people, to prohibit such testimony in Church trials in any of the states or territories where it is the established usage of the Church to admit, and when, in the judgment of the constitutional judicatories of the Church, such testimony may be admitted with safety to the peace of society, and the best interests of all concerned.

Resolved, That it is not the intention of this conference, in either of the above cases, or in any action had by this body, to express or imply any distrust, or want of confidence in the Christian piety and integrity of the numerous body of colored members under our pastoral care, to whom we are bound by the bonds of the gospel of Christ, and for whose spiritual and eternal interests, together with all our fellow-men of every color, and in every relation and condition in life, we will never cease to labor.”

The subject of temperance was again discussed, at great length and with lively interest; and although a memorial had been sent the rounds of the several annual conferences, praying for the substitution of Mr. Wesley’s rule in the place of the one now in the Discipline; and although, out of the two thousand and eighty who were present and voted on the resolutions praying for and authorizing the General Conference to make the alteration, one thousand seven hundred and seventy-four voted in the affirmative, and only three hundred and six in the negative; yet the committee to whom the subject had been submitted reported against the change, because they thought that the “true grammatical construction of the language of the Discipline implies that there must be three-fourths of the members of every annual conference in favor of the contemplated measure, in order that it may be lawfully carried into effect.” This novel interpretation of the law, though I believe it was not by any means sanctioned by a majority of the conference, tended much to defeat the measure so earnestly recommended and desired by such a large majority of both preachers and people; for when the vote was taken there were seventy-five for and thirty-eight against it, and these not being a majority of two-thirds of the whole number of delegates, the motion was declared lost.

I have already expressed my opinion freely upon the inconclusiveness of the reasoning of this report. In addition to what is there said, it may be remarked, that the doctrine would put it into the power of one single annual conference, and that too the smallest in the Union, to defeat the wishes of all the rest, though these wishes should be unanimously expressed. And surely it was never the intention of the General and annual conferences who proposed and adopted the proviso in the Discipline thus to authorize so small a minority to rule the whole Church, for this was the very thing they designed to defeat or to prevent. Several attempts had been made at preceding conferences to adopt some uniform method by which ministers of other denominations might be received into the Church and recognized in their proper character. At this General Conference the following regulations were adopted: —

Question 1. In what manner shall we receive those ministers who may come to us from the Wesleyan connection in Europe or Canada?

Answer If they come to us properly accredited from either the British, Irish, or Canada Conference, they may be received according to such credentials, provided they give satisfaction to an annual conference of their willingness to conform to our Church government and usages.

Question 2. How shall we receive those ministers who may offer to unite with us from other Christian churches?

Answer Those ministers of other evangelical churches who may desire to unite with our Church, whether as local or itinerant, may be received according to our usages, on condition of their taking upon them our ordination vows, without the reimposition of hands, giving satisfaction to an annual conference of their being in orders, and of their agreement with us in doctrine, discipline, government, and usages; provided the conference is also satisfied with their gifts, grace, and usefulness. Whenever any such minister is received, he shall be furnished with a certificate, signed by one of our bishops, in the following words, viz.: —

This is to certify, that has been admitted into conference as a traveling preacher, [or has been admitted as a local preacher on circuit,] he having been ordained to the office of a deacon, (or an elder, as the case may be,) according to the usages of the church, of which he has been a member and minister; and he is hereby authorized to exercise the functions pertaining to his office in the Methodist Episcopal Church, so long as his life and conversation are such as become the gospel of Christ.

“Given under my hand and seal, at this day of in the year of our Lord, .

Question 3. How shall we receive preachers of other denominations who are not in orders?

Answer They may be received as licentiates, provided they give satisfaction to a quarterly, or an annual conference, that they are suitable persons to exercise the office, and of their agreement with the doctrines, discipline, government, and usages of our Church.”

The custom of receiving person on trial for six months before they are admitted into full membership had been made to apply, by the generality of our preachers, to those who came to us recommended from other churches, while some had admitted them without this intermediate process. To settle this question, and to produce uniformity in this branch of the administration, the rule in relation to receiving members was so altered as to read as follows: —

“Let none be received into the Church, until they are recommended by a leader with whom they have met at least six months on trial, and have been baptized; and shall, on examination by the minister in charge, before the Church, give satisfactory assurances both of the correctness of their faith, and their willingness to observe and keep the rules of the Church. Nevertheless, if a member in good standing in any other orthodox church shall desire to unite with us, such applicant may, by giving satisfactory answers to the usual inquiries, be received at once into full fellowship.”

The Sunday School Union of the Methodist Episcopal Church had become defunct. This had originated partly in an injudicious attempt to amalgamate the Bible, Tract, and Sunday School Societies together, by which the business of these several societies might be transacted by one board of management, and partly from the little control which the parent society exercised over its auxiliaries and branches, and, I may add also, from the peculiar manner of our organization in respect to the duty of furnishing books for sabbath schools. While the boards of other denominations were responsible for the entire management of all the affairs of the societies under their supervision, ours had nothing to do with raising money to meet the expense of publishing books, this, as well as selecting and printing them, being in the hands of the agency of the Book Concern. In consequence of this wise arrangement, the managers of the Sunday School Union incurred but few responsibilities, and had but little to do, while the mingling of many things together rendered that little perplexing and inefficient.