Nathan Bangs · 27 of 29

Chapter 15. The General Conference of 1840 · Part 5

It must not be supposed, however, that the sabbath school cause had been suffered to languish. The various societies continued their existence, were in efficient operation, and the children were regularly taught in nearly all our congregations, particularly in our large cities and villages; but they acted independently of each other, and were therefore not connected together by any general head, or bond of union, except so far as the agency of the Book Concern exerted its influence in furnishing the books on the cheapest terms, according to the provisions of the Publishing Fund.

There were supposed to be defects, however, in this system, which ought to he remedied. To do this, a memorial was presented to this General Conference, by a number of brethren in the city of New York, praying for the reorganization of a Sunday School Society according to the principles of a new constitution which was submitted to the conference. The deliberations resulted in the adoption of the constitution, and of the following section in the Discipline: —

Question What shall we do for the rising generation?

Answer

Let Sunday schools be formed in all our Congregations where ten children can be collected for that purpose. And it shall be the special duty of preachers having charge of circuits and stations, with the aid of the other preachers, to see that this he done; to engage the co-operation of as many of our members as they can; to visit the schools as often as practicable; to preach on the subject of Sunday schools and religious instruction in each congregation at least once in six months; to lay before the quarterly conference at each quarterly meeting, to be entered on its journal, a written statement of the number and state of the Sunday schools within their respective circuits and stations, and to make a report of the same to their several annual conferences. Each quarterly conference shall be deemed a board of managers, having supervision of all the Sunday schools and Sunday school societies within its limits, and shall be auxiliary to the Sunday School Union of the Methodist Episcopal Church; and each annual conference shall report to said union the number of auxiliaries within its bounds, together with other facts presented in the annual reports of the preachers as above directed.

It is recommended that each annual conference, where the general state of the work will allow, request the appointment of a special agent, to travel throughout its bounds, for the purpose of promoting the interests of Sunday schools; and his expenses shall be paid out of collections which he shall be directed to make, or otherwise, as shall be ordered by the conference.

Let our catechisms be used as extensively as possible, both in our Sunday schools and families; and let the preachers faithfully enforce upon parents and Sunday school teachers the great importance of instructing children in the doctrines and duties of our holy religion.

It shall be the special duty of the preachers to form Bible classes wherever they can, for the instruction of larger children and youth; and where they cannot superintend them personally, to appoint suitable leaders for that purpose.

It shall be the duty of every preacher of a circuit or station to obtain the names of the children belonging to his congregations, and leave a list of such names for his successor; and in his pastoral visits he shall pay special attention to the children, speak to them personally, and kindly, on experimental and practical godliness, according to their capacity, pray earnestly for them, and diligently instruct and exhort all parents to dedicate their children to the Lord in baptism as early as convenient; and let all baptized children be faithfully instructed in the nature, design, privileges, and obligations of their baptism. Those of them who are well disposed may be admitted to our class meetings and love feasts, and such as are truly serious, and manifest a desire to flee the wrath to come, shall be advised to join society as probationers.”

Whether this society will he able to perform the duties and to accomplish the objects which the other failed to do, remains to be seen. If, however, the members and managers heartily co-operate with the book agency in the selection and publication of books, and otherwise carry into practical effect the spirit and objects of their organization, they will no doubt render important service to the sabbath school cause.

A very able report was adopted near the conclusion of the conference on the subject of ordaining ministers in slave-holding states who own slaves, and will not liberate them from their bondage. This arose out of the practice of the Baltimore conference in refusing to ordain some local preachers, who lived in the state of Virginia, where they pleaded that the laws would not permit emancipation.

As this subject had never before been so fully investigated, and as the report, dawn up by Dr. Bascom, very clearly unfolds the principles by which the Church has ever been governed upon this grave and important question, I think the reader will be pleased to have the entire report before him. It is as follows: —

“The committee, to whom was referred the memorial and appeal of some fifteen official members of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Westmoreland circuit, Baltimore conference, on the subject of alleged withholdment of right from a portion of the local ministry within the limits of that conference, and to when was likewise referred the report of the judiciary committee upon a similar remonstrance from the same division of the Baltimore conference, signed by about thirty official members of the Church, and addressed to the General Conference in 1836, after giving to the subject the attention its obvious importance demands, beg leave to report the following as the result of their deliberations: —

“The particular portion, or rather general section of country in which these remonstrances have their origin, although belonging to the Baltimore conference, is found within the limits of the state of Virginia; and the memorialists represent in strong but respectful terms, that local preachers within the jurisdiction of the Baltimore conference, but residing in the commonwealth of Virginia, have, in considerable numbers, and for a succession of years, been rejected as applicants for deacon’s and elders orders in the ministry, solely on the ground of their being slave-holders, or the owners of slaves. In the memorials referred to it is distinctly stated, that election and ordination have been withheld from the applicants in question on no other ground or pretense than that of their being the owners of slave property; and it is further argued that the Baltimore conference avows this to be the only reason of the course they pursue, and which is complained of by the petitioners. The appellants allege further, that the laws of Virginia relating to slavery forbid emancipation, except under restrictions, and subject to contingencies amounting, to all intents and purposes, to a prohibition; and that the Discipline of the Church having provided for the ordination of ministers thus circumstanced, the course pursued by the Baltimore conference operates as an abridgment of right, and therefore furnishes just ground of complaint. The memorialists regard themselves as clearly entitled to the protection of the well-known provisional exception to the general rule on this subject found in the Discipline; and assume with confidence, and argue with firmness and ability, that no other objection being found to the character of candidates for ordination, it is a departure from the plain intendment of the law in the case, and a violation of not less express compact than of social justice, to withhold ordination for reasons which the provisions of the law plainly declare are not to be considered as a forfeiture of right. It is set forth in the argument of the appellants, that, attaching themselves to the Church as citizens of Virginia, where, in the obvious sense of the Discipline, emancipation is impracticable, the holding of slaves, or failure to emancipate them, cannot be plead in bar to the right of ordination, as is the ease in states where emancipation, as defined and qualified by the rule in the case, is found to be practicable. In the latter ease the question is within the jurisdiction of the Church, inasmuch as the holding or not holding of property of this kind depends not upon the constitution and regulation of civil property, but upon the will and purpose of individuals. Under such circumstances the conduct in question is voluntary, and in every final sense the result of choice. In the former, however, where emancipation is resisted by the prohibition of law, it may be otherwise and in many instances is known to be resulting entirely from the involuntary relations and circumstances of individuals connected with the very structure of civil polity, and the force and array of public opinion and popular interest. The memorialists advert to the fact, that we have in the Discipline two distinct classes of legislative provision in relation to slavery — the one applying to owners of slaves where emancipation is practicable, consistently with the interests of master and slaves, and the other where it is impracticable without endangering such safety, and these interests on the part of both. With the former, known as the general rule on this subject, the petitioners do not interfere in any way, and are content simply to place themselves under the protection of the latter as contracting parties with the Church; and the ground of complaint is that the Church has failed to redeem the pledge of its own laws, by refusing or failing to promote to office ministers, in whose case no disability attaches on the ground of slavery, because the disability attaching in other cases is here removed by special provision of law, and so far leaves the right to ordination clear and undoubted, and hence the complaint against the Baltimore conference. In further prosecution of the duty assigned them, your committee have carefully examined the law, and inquired into the system of slavery as it exists in Virginia, and find the representation of the memorialists essentially correct. The conditions with which emancipation is burdened in that commonwealth preclude the practicability of giving freedom to slaves as contemplated in the Discipline, except in extremely rare instances say one in a thousand, and possibly not more than one in five thousand. The exception in the Discipline is therefore strictly applicable to all the ministers and members of the Methodist Episcopal Church holding slaves in Virginia, and they appear clearly entitled to the benefit of the rule made and provided in such cases.

“As emancipation under such circumstances is not a requirement of Discipline, it cannot be made a condition of eligibility to office. An appeal to the policy and practice of the Church for fifty years past will show incontestably, that, whatever may have been the convictions of the Church with regard to this great evil, the nature and tendency of the system of slavery, it has never insisted upon emancipation in contravention of civil authority; and it therefore appears to be a well-settled and long-established principle in the polity of the Church that no ecclesiastical disabilities are intended to ensue either to the ministers or members of the Church in those states where the civil authority forbids emancipation. The general rule therefore distinctly and invariably requiring emancipation as the ground of right, and the condition of claim to ordination where the laws of the several states admit of emancipation, and permit the liberated slave to enjoy freedom, and which, in the judgment of your committee, should always be carried into effect with unyielding firmness, does not apply to your memorialists, and cannot by any fair construction of law affect their rights.

“On the other hand, your committee have given the most careful consideration to the position of the Baltimore conference complained of by the appellants. The journals of the several sessions of the Baltimore conference, for a series of years, have been carefully examined, and found to be silent on the subject of the rejections in question, except the single statement that A, B, and C, from time to time, applied for admission or orders, and were rejected. We find no rule or reason of action, no evidence of preconception, no grounds or reasons of rejection, stated in any form, directly or indirectly. Nothing of this kind is avowed in, or found upon the face of the journals of that body. The charge of particular motives, it occurs to your committee, cannot be sustained in the instance of a deliberative body, say the Baltimore conference, unless it appears in evidence that the motives have been avowed by a majority of the conference; and it is not in proof that the conference has ever had an action to this effect, whatever may have been the declaration of individuals sustaining the charge of the appellants. The fact charged without reference to motives, that there has been a long list of rejections, both as it regards admission into the traveling connection and ordination, until the exception seems to be made a general rule, is undoubtedly true, and is not denied by the defendants. The evidence, however, in relation to specific reasons and motives is defective, and does not appear to sustain the charge of a contravention of right by any direct accredited action of the Baltimore conference had in the premises.

“That this view of the subject presents a serious difficulty is felt by your committee, and must be so by all. The rule applicable in this case allows an annual conference to act under the circumstances; but does not, and from the very nature and ubiquity of the case, cannot require it. Among the unquestioned constitutional rights of our annual conferences is that of acting freely, without any compulsory direction, in the exercise of individual franchise. Election here is plainly an assertion of personal right on the part of the different members composing the body, with regard to which the claim to question or challenge motives does not belong even to the General Conference, unless the result has turned upon avowed considerations unknown to the law and rule in the case. The journal of the conference is the only part of its history of which this body has cognizance, and to extend such cognizance to the reasons and motives of individual members of conferences not declared to be the ground of action by a majority, would be to establish a rule at once subversive of the rights and independence of annual conferences. In the very nature of the case an annual conference must possess the right of free and uncontrolled determination, not only in the choice of its members, but in all its elections, and keeping within the limits and restrictions of its charter as found in the Discipline, can only be controlled in the exercise of such right by moral and relative considerations, connected with the intelligence and interests of the body.

“The memorialists prayed the last General Conference, and they again ask this to interfere authoritatively by change or construction of rule so as to afford relief; and in failure to do so in the memorial of 1836, they ask to be set off to the Virginia conference, as the only remaining remedy. In their present petition they are silent on the subject of a transfer to Virginia. Under all the circumstances of the case, and taking into the account the probabilities of future action in the premises, your committee cannot but regard this as the only conclusive remedy. But how far this may be considered as relatively practicable, or whether advisable in view of all the interests involved, the committee have no means of determining, and therefore leave it to the judgment of those who have. That the petitioners, in accordance with the provisions of the Discipline, whether said provisions be right or wrong, are entitled to remedy, your committee cannot for a moment doubt, inasmuch as they are laboring, and have been for years, under practical disabilities actually provided against by the Discipline of the Church. The alleged grievance is by the petitioners themselves regarded as one of administration, not of law. No change of legislation is asked for, unless this body prefer it; and it does not appear to your committee to he called for by any view of the subject they have been able to take.

“Your committee are unwilling to close the brief view of this subject, without anxiously suggesting that, as it is one of the utmost importance, and intense delicacy in its application and bearings throughout our entire country, involving in greater or less degree the hopes and fears, the anxieties and interests of millions, it must be expected that great variety of opinions and diversity of conviction and feeling will be found to exist in relation to it, and most urgently call for the exercise of mutual forbearance and reciprocal good will on the part of all concerned. May not the principles and causes, giving birth and perpetuity to great moral and political systems or institutions be regarded as evil, even essentially evil in every primary aspect of the subject, without the implication of moral obliquity on the part of those involuntarily connected with such systems and institutions, and providentially involved in their operation and consequences? May not a system of this kind be jealously regarded as in itself more or less inconsistent with natural right, and moral rectitude, without the imputation of guilt and derelict motive, in the instance of those who, without any choice or purpose of their own, are necessarily subjected to its influence and sway?

“Can it be considered as just or reasonable to hold individuals responsible for the destiny of circumstances over which they have no control?, Thus conditioned in the organic arrangements and distributions of society, is there any necessary connection between the moral character of the individual and that of the system? In this way the modifying influence of unavoidable agencies or circumstances in the formation of character is a well-known principle, and one of universal recognition in law, morals, and religion, and upon which all administration of law, not unjust and oppressive, must proceed. And your committee know of no reason why the rule is inapplicable, or should not obtain, in relation to the subject of this report. In conclusion, the committee would express the deliberate opinion that, while the general rule on the subject of slavery, relating to those states only whose laws admit of emancipation, and permit the liberated slave to enjoy freedom, should be firmly and constantly enforced, the exception to the general rule applying to those states where emancipation, as defined above, is not practicable, should be recognized and protected with equal firmness and impartiality. The committee respectfully suggest to the conference the propriety of adopting the following resolution: —

“Resolved, by the delegates of the several annual conferences in General Conference assembled, That, under the provisional exception of the general rule of the Church on the subject of slavery, the simple holding of slaves, or mere ownership of slave property, in states or territories here the laws do not admit of emancipation and permit the liberated slave to enjoy freedom, constitutes no legal barrier to the election or ordination of ministers to the various grades of office known in the ministry of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and cannot, therefore, be considered as operating any forfeiture of right in view of such election and ordination.”

It will be seen by a reference to the address of the managers of our Missionary Society, that they prayed for certain alterations in its constitution. After considerable debate, provision was made for the election of two additional secretaries, and likewise empowering the managers to provide for the widows and orphan children of such missionaries as have fallen in foreign missionary work where an annual conference has hen or may he found, inasmuch as they had no claim upon the ordinary funds of the annual conferences. And the general report of the conference regarding missions gave an encouraging view of the great and growing missionary field of labor, and invited preachers and people to a united and vigorous prosecution of this holy and benevolent enterprise.

A memorial was presented to the conference by the secretary of the American Colonization Society, which was referred to a committee, and the following report was adopted almost unanimously: —

“That, after mature deliberation, we are convinced that the American Colonization Society is deserving the patronage and support of the entire Christian community as exerting a most beneficial influence upon the colored population of our own country, and more especially upon the inhabitants of Africa, particularly the colonists of Liberia, and the neighboring native tribes. It is chiefly however, as Christians, and as Christian ministers, that we view this enterprise favorably, on account of the facilities which it affords to the Christian missionary to extend the blessings of the gospel to that benighted portion of our globe. The success which has already attended our missions in that country is, to us, a sure indication that Providence designs to make Liberia a means of enlightening Africa with the light of salvation, as well as a place of refuge for the distressed. With these views the committee respectfully recommend to the conference the adoption of the following: —

Resolved, by the delegates of the several annual conferences in General Conference assembled, That we view with favor the efforts which are now making by the American Colonization Society to build up a colony on the coast of Liberia with free people of color by their own consent.

Resolved, That the success which has hitherto attended this noble and philanthropic enterprise is a sure pledge that, if still prosecuted with wisdom and energy, it will be rendered a great blessing, not only to the colonies themselves, but also to the vast population of Africa, now enveloped in heathenish darkness.

Resolved, That we recommend this society to the attention and patronage of our brethren and friends; and that the several annual conferences which may feel themselves free to aid this enterprise of benevolence to the souls and bodies of people of color, both in our own country and in Africa be, and hereby are affectionately advised and requested to adopt such measures as they may think suitable to promote its objects, by taking up collections on or about the fourth of July in each year.”

Much inconvenience had been experienced in some of the conferences in consequence of supernumerary preachers leaving their stations with a view to become agents for societies not in connection with our Church, and which, in some instances, even operated against the peace and harmony of the body. To prevent evils of this character, the following clause was inserted in the Discipline: —

“A supernumerary preacher who refuses to attend to the work assigned him, unless in case of sickness or other unavoidable cause or causes, shall not be allowed to exercise the functions of his office, nor even to preach among us; nevertheless, the final determination of the case shall be with the annual conference of which he is a member, who shall have power to acquit, suspend, locate, or expel him, as the case may be.”

The rule incorporated in the Discipline at the last General Conference respecting the trial of superannuated preachers who reside out of the bounds of their respective conferences, was found inadequate to its object, as it was impossible to arrest the progress of a disorderly person who might choose to evade the rule, if justified in his course by the conference to which he belonged. This conference, therefore, so amended the rule as to make it read as follows: —

“If the accused be a superannuated preacher, living out of the bounds of the conference of which he is a member, he shall be held responsible to the annual conference within whose bounds he may reside, who shall have power to try, acquit, suspend, locate, or expel him, in the same manner as if he were a member of said conference.”

These comprehend all the important acts of the conference. There were, to be sure, several verbal alterations in some portions of the Discipline, which, however, do not materially alter the sense, or any principle of the government. The motion for a complete revision of the Discipline, so as to harmonize its several parts, to make a more systematical arrangement of its sections, and to correct the phraseology, which had become, in consequence of haste or negligence, somewhat unintelligible, notwithstanding its obvious necessity, was lost, chiefly because the object of the mover was misapprehended. It is hoped, however, that such a revision will yet be made, as it would add greatly to the perspicuity of the Discipline, and prevent much of that discordant administration which arises from the ambiguity of the law in certain cases.

Before the conference adjourned, Bishop Soule was appointed to attend as a representative to the Wesleyan Methodist Conference in 1842, and he nominated Thomas B. Sargeant to accompany him, and the nomination was confirmed by the conference. Bishop Hedding was requested to attend the Canada Conference, or, in the event of his being unable to go, the bishops were authorized to select a person for that service.

The following is the pastoral address: —

“Dearly Beloved Brethren, — As the representatives of the several annual conferences in General Conference assembled, we assume the pleasing duty of addressing to you our Christian salutations: ‘Grace be unto you, and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ,’ both now and for ever.

“In reviewing the history of the past four years, while we see some occasions for humiliation before God, we see much in the dealings of our heavenly Father with us which calls aloud for gratitude and praise. The unwelcome and startling fact of a diminution of the numbers in society had awakened in our minds great solicitude. Fearing lest we had so far departed from our original purity of character as to be cursed with barrenness, and to give place to others whom God would constitute more appropriate instruments in achieving the moral renovation of the world, we sent up our cry to heaven,’ Spare thy people, O Lord, and give not thine heritage to reproach.’ At this point in our history we very justly concluded that instead of indulging in fruitless speculations upon the causes which had brought about this state of things, it became us to gird ourselves for new exertions, and to look up to the great head of the Church for a renewed and signal manifestation of his power and grace, to raise the fainting spirits and cheer the trembling hearts of the armies of our Israel. And how wonderfully have our efforts been succeeded! Truly may we say, ‘In a little wrath he hid his face from us, for a moment, but with everlasting kindness’ has he had ‘mercy upon us.’

“Within the last year the state of the American Methodist Church has assumed a most interesting and cheering aspect. The spirit of grace and supplication has been poured out upon her, and her converts have been greatly multiplied. Extensive and powerful revivals have been reported through our excellent periodicals, from almost every point of the wide field occupied by our regular itinerant ministry, or by our missionaries. Multitudes of fallen and miserable men have been happily renovated and brought within the pale of the Church. Many desolate and barren fields have become as the garden of the Lord; presenting to the gaze of the world the variegated tints of moral beauty, sending up to heaven the sweet odors of pure devotion, and yielding the precious fruits of righteousness, to the glory and honor of God.

“The first centenary of Methodism has brought with it a state of great enlargement and prosperity. The pious zeal which you exhibited in the appropriate celebration of this new era in our history, and the liberal offerings you presented to the Church, exhibit a praiseworthy regard for her institutions, and doubtless constitute a sacrifice with which God is well pleased. Though, on this interesting occasion, you did no more than was your duty to do, God blessed you in the deed, having brought your tithes into the storehouse of the Lord, and proved him therewith, he has poured you out a blessing that there is scarcely room to contain.

“It affords us great pleasure to witness the strong tendency which develops itself among the Methodists to adhere to the peculiar principles which have characterized them from the beginning, and to remain one and indissoluble. Though some have entered into ‘doubtful disputations,’ and a few of our societies have been hurtfully agitated, yet to the honor of our enlightened membership, and to the glory of God, would we at this time express our solemn conviction that the great mass of our people have remained ‘firm as a wall of brass’ ‘midst the commotions of conflicting elements. There seems at this moment far less occasion to fear from the causes of dissension than there was at the last meeting of this conference. Indeed, brethren, we have no doubt but if we all continue to ‘walk by the same rule, and to mind the same things,’ in which in the order of God we have been instructed, ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against us,’ and the enemy who would divide and scatter, in order to destroy us, will be dis appointed.

“Since the commencement of the present session of the General Conference, memorials have been presented principally from the northern and eastern divisions of the work, some praying for the action of the conference on the subject of slavery, and others asking for radical changes in the economy of the Church. The results of the deliberations of the committees to whom these memorials had a respectful reference, and the final action of the conference upon them, may be seen among the doings of this body, as reported and published. The issue in several instances is probably different from what the memorialists may have thought they had reason to expect. But it is to be hoped they will not suppose the General Conference has either denied them any legitimate right, or been wanting in a proper respect for their opinions. Such is the diversity of habits of thought, manners, customs, and domestic relations among the people of this vast republic, and such the diversity of the institutions of the sovereign states of the confederacy, that it is not to be supposed an easy task to suit all the incidental circumstances of our economy to the views and feelings of the vast mass of minds interested. We pray, therefore, that brethren whose views may have been crossed by the acts of this conference will at least give us the credit of having acted in good faith, and of not having regarded private ends or party interests, but the best good of the whole family of American Methodists.