Library of
Emory University
7^725
MAY 3 0 1934
DISCUSSION
ON
METHODIST EPISCOPACY,
BETWEEN
REV. E. J. HAMILL,
of the alabama conference, and pastor of the methodist episcopal
church,south,tuskegee,ala.
AND
SAMUEL HENDERSON,
pastor of the tuskegee baptist church, and editor of the
south western baptist.
Published at the mutual request of Baptists and Methodists.
'* Prove all things: hold fast that which is good."—Paul.
C HARLESTON :
JAMES AND WILLIAMS.
steam presses, 16 state-street.
1 8 5 6.
Entered according to the Act of Congress, in the year 185 G, by
Rey. E. J. Hamill and Samuel Henderson,
In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of South-Carolina.
CONTENTS.
Episcopal Methodism—anti-American", 1
LETTER I.
Episcopal Methodism not anti-American.
Wesley's loyalty; Methodists love their doctrines; General
Conference cannot change doctrines; Ministers called of
God, and sent out by His people; Two orders in the Minis¬
try; Bishop Hamline's resignation; Apostolic itinerancy;
Lay delegation;.Peculiar institution; A bishop has no vote;
Members tried by their societies; Freedom of opinion; Ap¬
pointing power of bishops exercised wisely; Bishops hold
no Church property; Morbid imagination 13
REPLY TO LETTER I.
Courtesy extended; Two enquiries; Great names do not change
error into truth; The power of a religious theory true or
false, in the formation of character; Our Position Defined;
Lexicographical definition of terms; Application of these
definitions to the subject in debate; Annual and General
Conferences composed only of bishops and travelling
preachers; Exclusion of laymen from these bodies; The
clergy the basis of representation; Episcopacy never to be
changed; an effort to change it rebuked; The legislative,
executive, and judicial departments of government all filled
exclusively by the clergy; Dr. Bascom's opinion; Methodist
Episcopacy deprives laymen of the right of choosing their
own pastors; Anecdotes of Dr. Rippon and Robert Hall;
The argumentum ad hominem; Extent of our endorsement
of the article from the Western Watchman 20
LETTER n.
Methodist Episcopacy not anti-Republican.
Christian discussion profitable; Foreign topics; The Bible and
its Episcopacy a foreign importation; Mormoli the only
system of religion of American origin; Mistakes corrected;
The advantages of Itinerancy: The Democratic principle
acknowledged, that none should make laws but those who
are subject to them; Itinerants made such by the people;
Itinerants constitute their officers like legislatures; Power
ii
CONTENTS.
of the General Conference over bishops; Four points in
which Church government should be unlike civil govern¬
ment; Methodist Church government bears a proper ana¬
logy to our Federal Government; Fancy sketch of the
youth, Bascom; Anecdote; Paul's definition of Episcopos;
The Baptist discipline; Government it describes unlike
our civil government; A sad picture; An ww-Republican
feature; Robert Hall's view of close communion. ... 34
REPLY TO LETTER II.
Thfe-jsf$kand spirit of Mr. Hamill commended; Precise ques¬
tion ^jissue; Foreign topics; Episcopacy a transplant from
Eufffptf; Analogy between the Church of England and
the Methodist Episcopal Church; Singular way of proving
two orders in the Methodist ministry; Bishops Soule and
Capers; Mistake corrected; The right of appeal; The part
Mr. Wesley and his first preachers took in our Revolution¬
ary War; Not probable that they would impart the element
of Republicanism to a religious structure; James O'Kelly,
William M'Kendree, Rice Haggard, and others; An effort
to reform the system in 1824 and 1828; insulting answer of
the General Conference to sundry memorials; Exclusion
and suspension of the reformers; Moral heroism of " fifty
females;" Acts xx. 28; No connection between Bible and
Methodist Episcopacy; Sophistry in the use of the term
"Puseyistic;" Itinerant plan; Episcopacy defined; The
"Democratic element;" Baptist anarchy; "Close com¬
munion;" Specimen of logic; Another " fancy sketch" from
the " youthful Bascom;" Courtesy asked 46
LETTER HI.
Methodism like its creed—peace and good will to
man.
Christian courtesy appreciated; A case of twisting; Precious
charity of Mr. Graves; Foreign topics again; Sixty Ameri¬
can preachers; Admirable logic; Robert Hall's opinion of
Wesley; Robert Hall repels the charge of Republicanism
from Baptists; Wesley's view of the duty of American Me¬
thodists; George Washington's prayer for the prosperity of
Methodism; Children's teeth not set on edge; Thomas Mun-
cer's proclamation; John Matthias' and John Bocold's
Republic; Concession; Angels of the churches first among
equals; Paul's ordination; Bishop Capers' opinion; Human
instrumentality designates the field of ministerial labor;
Charles Y. not German Emperor by divine right; Correc¬
tions; Hon. and Rev. Baptist Noel's description of the lay
CONTENTS.
iii
management in tlie English Church; Retraction demanded;
What would make the English monarchy exceedingly Dem¬
ocratic; Supposed one hundred Baptist itinerants; In the
business of Baptist State and Southern Conventions we
have lay management; What rights and privileges we 1
ignore; O'Kelly's resolution; Cordial acknowledgment;
The courtesy returned. . . • C6
REPLY TO LETTER III.
True origin of Methodist Episcop.acy.
Hypothetical argument; Interesting letter from Mr. Wesley;
Mr. Wesley the father of Methodism, not of Episcopal'Me¬
thodism; Ordination of Dr. Coke as superintendent, not as
bishop, of the American Societies; Mr. Wesley's account
of it; Interesting overture of Dr. Coke to Bishop White
and the Lord Bishop of London; Thrilling letter from Pres¬
byter Wesley to Bishop Asbury; A sad mistake either in the
book of Discipline or in History; The true origin of Epis¬
copacy; The General Conference persists in calling Mr.
Wesley by a name, than which he affirmed he had rather
be " called a knave, or a fool, a scoundrel, a rascalf The
"bitter pill" suppressed; Two interesting authentic docu¬
ments placed in juxtaposition; Bishop Bascom doubts the
historical probity of Sec. 1st of the book of Discipline;
Striking congruity between the caption of the article, and
the text of Scripture superadded; Being " a little out of
temper" distorts one's fancy; unlimited range of discus¬
sion asked and conceded; Points endorsed in the article
from the Watchman; Ebullitions of passion; The charge
of falsehood repelled, and an explanation asked; A chase
after the " Iron Wheel;" Methodist Episcopacy not so an¬
cient as Nebuchadnezzar; Extract from a "Methodist
Hymn;" John Wesley and Robert Hall; Our civil liberties
" so strangely" achieved, despite Mr. Wesley's efforts; con¬
trast between General Washington's responses to the con¬
gratulatory addresses from Methodist bishops and Baptist
Churches; The Munster affair; The " unkind cut," the only
method of chastising clerical domination; " Three orders
of ministers are recognised;"" The "tug of war;" A sad
predicament; "Glaring errors;" Reversing propositions;
Proof; Constitutional officers of the Episcopal Church
not private members; A " solemn demand of an unquali¬
fied retraction" declined; The predicament in which the
demanded retraction would place " our Episcopacy;"
Baptist W. Noel; Endorsement of the answer of the bish¬
ops to sundfy memorials; The colors struck 82
iv
CONTENTS.
LETTER IV.
Methodism.
More twisting; Encouraging admissions; Mr. Noel on govern¬
ment of the English Church by worldly politicians; A queer
Parliamentary Episcopacy; Danger of Methodist Episco¬
pacy being controlled by the State, as English.Episcopacy
is; Retraction refused; Fate of those who would mend our
doctrines; Bishop Asbury"s claim upon the Methodist Book
Concern;. Challenge to publish a Church deed; Freedom of
speech again; Parallels upon the title of Bishop; Dr. Coke's
injudicious application for re-ordination; Father Jesse Mer¬
cer's opinion of a Minister's Conference; The strange re¬
presentation in the Southern Baptist Convention; A Quar¬
terly Conference metamorphosed into another Episcopacy;
Prerogatives of the laity; Reasoning which will determine
the funny problem; The Methodist Church government re¬
sembles our civil government more closely than the Bap¬
tist Church government does, proved by several logical ar¬
guments; Twenty Baptist ministers in Canada, threw off
the yoke of Close Communion; John Bunyan's, Baptist
Noel's, and Robert Hall's abhorrence of the same yoke;
Connectionalism of Methodism; A Baptist excommunicated
for joining a sister Church; Beauties of the Republicanism
of the Alabama Baptists, as portrayed by their own histo¬
rian, Rev. H. Holcombe; a gracious privilege rescinded;
Anti-Republican resolutions of sixteen Baptist Churches; A
Baptist's opinion of the persecuting spirit of the Claiborne
Baptist Church; The Alabama Baptist State Convention
votes that an infernal spirit gets into every Baptist com¬
munity, however small; Paternal chastisement; Baptist In¬
quisitorial taxation without representation; The penalty;
The modus operandi of assessment; Uncommon submissive-
ness; Burns; If Baptists are not equal to angels, a civil go¬
vernment, framed after the model of their Church govern¬
ment, would not do; Anecdote
REPLY TO LETTER IV.
Interior view of Methodist Episcopacy, by Master
Artists.
Advantages of religious controversy; Discrimination between
men and principles; Absolute clerical power unscriptural
and dangerous; A peep at the inner vail; Back ground
sketch, by Bishop Bascom, and a full portraiture, by Bishop
Hamline; Mr. Hamline rewarded with a bishopric; Analy¬
sis of the picture; Human crednlity has some bounds which
clerical demands may not pass; A Presbyterian's opinion of
the picture; Mr. Hamill's fourth letter; Congratulated on
the improvement of his tone and spirit; The " fair" and
CONTENTS.
v
" clear" disc of Methodism makes John Wesley " start and
shudder;" " Trustification;" Natural mistake; Dexterous
use of Mr. Noel's armory; Transparent perversion; Articles
of faith and discipline imposed upon the laity without their
consent; ,Hudibras; Another quotation from Hudibras;
"Parallels;" Mr. Wesley in a dilemma; Singular perver¬
sion of a garbled extract from the Baptist Confession of
Faith; Mr. Wesley competent to construe his own act; A
digression in pursuit of Mr. Hamill; Four fundamental
points in Baptist Church Polity; Deacons', meetings, asso¬
ciations, and conventions; A terrible crime against " our
free country;" The " decree" of an " advisory council;'" All
forms of government susceptible of abuse; Reception hnd
expulsion of members in the M. E. Church; Father Mercer;
the " standards" on sacramental communion; The Baptist
ground occupied by all denominations; Robert Hall's de¬
nunciation of the inconsistency of Pedobaptists in asking
the Baptists to sacrifice a principle from which the practice
of each results; Explanation asked 127
LETTER V.
Methodism.
Methodism never connected with the State; Bro. Henderson's
just denunciation of persecution; points of agreement;
Doctrine of the fathers of Trent rejected; Fuller's view of
the extent of pastoral care; A bold admission; True cre¬
dentials; A few drops or a whole pond of water insuffi¬
cient to regenerate; Bro. Henderson's analysis of the ele¬
ments of a Church amended; The great Head of the
Church legislates for her, and calls her officers; Exercise
of reason not superseded; Conventions and creeds neces¬
sary; The absence of connectionalism the cause of disorder
in the Baptist Church; Exceedingly powerful advice;
Agreement" with Rob't Hall; A new style of logic; The
faith of Methodism not mended; Methodism has a single
grand platform of doctrines; The Baptist Church may
have ten thousand varying creeds, and, therefore, cannot
with accuracy be styled The Baptist Church; The Hiwas-
see Baptist Association; Baptist Churches have no legis¬
lative representatives at all; Their practice better than
their theory; Mr. Wesley did prefer the Episcopal mode of
Church government; Unique reasoning; Mercer favors a
platform similar to that of Methodism; An interior view
of the trial of members; The challenge to publish a deed
refused; Power of bishops in civil matters; The generosity
of the General Conference in making bishops of its ene¬
mies; Chief business of an Annual or General Conference;
Why should the laity a«t in two Church courts upon the
same cases? Distinction between the act of distributing min-
vi
CONTENTS.
isters and other Church business; Baptist itinerancy again;
A Georgia Baptist Conference of ministers; Father Mercer;
Church removals like removals by the President; Bishop
Hamline's view excessively Republican; A chance for a
pretty burst of indignation 154;
Analogy.—Analogy between the Methodist Church govern¬
ment and the United States government, shown in many
particulars; Consistency would require the opposers of Me¬
thodism to seek the destruction of our civil Republic;
Other"Baptist disorders; Melancholy spectacle; Popery in
the Berlin Baptist Church, as their poets say; Opposition
preaching; Explanation; Glaring errors; Baptist piety will
do good in.spite of its defective government; Concession. 172
REPLY TO LETTER Y.
Methodist Church Property Case.
The "sun" and "moon" of "our Episcopacy" slightly
eclipsed; An interesting engagement between the two
wings of the "terrible army with banners;" A circuit rider
slain, and a bishop put hors de combat; " Our Episcopacy"
sues " our Episcopacy;" Two important principles evolved
in the suit; Extracts from the speeches of Messrs. Lord
and Johnson, the counsel for the claimants; Episcopal Me¬
thodism an aristocracy, which " admits no constituents;"
The decision of the court; Each party recognizing the deci¬
sion, the one by yielding to, the other by accepting the
award; The relative ability of the United States' Circuit
Court, and " an obscure local organ," to injure " our
Episcopacy;" Sorrowful light; More than a million of the
"rank and file" of the "terrible army" slain at " one fell
swoop;" More about the " Democratic element." . . . 178
Friendly greeting; Reasonable expectations disappointed;
The Munster affair again; A civil, not a religious move¬
ment; A sprinkling of sprinklers among the insurgents;
Buck;' The Ink Fish; An interesting syllogism; The " four
points" vindicated; Episcopal remedy for Church disor¬
ders worse than the disease; Dead palsy; Ministers' and
deacons' meetings again; A practical question propounded
to the laity of the Methodist Episcopal Church; "Hender-
sonian" logic; A "strictness of speech" that cuts two
ways; No legislative authority given to the Churches by
Christ and the Apostles; A stride towards Rome; Some
plain questions asked; The advantage which " our Episco¬
pacy" might have been to Paul and the primitive Churches,
in rectifying their disorders; " Duplicity;" Not responsible
for results, \jhere facts are stated; Unkind insinuation in
CONTENTS.
vii
regard to Bishops McKendree and Bascom; The " man of
straw" betraying tokens of sensibility; The charge of sec¬
ond-handed quotations, and garbling; An enquiry after the
"symbols of faith, called creeds" in the apostolic age;
Supposed to be the New Testament; Those who adopt it
as their only rule of faith, and conduct have something
which can be " accurately styled Church Government;"
Satisfactory explanation 194
The Contrast.
The contrast between Methodist Episcopacy and our civil
governments, State and National, in seventeen distinct and
fundamental points; The Methodist Episcopal Church the
only denomination of Protestants in the United States,
from whose ecclesiastical bodies all laymen are excluded
by constitutional law; Not a fact contested which has been
alleged in the discussion; The " Democratic element " in
Episcopal Methodism, if it exists at all, must exist not¬
withstanding all these facts; Synopsis and'application of
the argument; Conclusion 213
Letter to Messrs. David Clopton, John B. Bilbro, and Robert
L. Mayes . . . 226.
LETTER VT.
The Methodist Book Concern; A valuable auxili¬
ary of the Gospel; And a holy charity,; Hon.
Bufus Choate's view of Methodism; The con¬
trast reviewed.
Mr. Lord's history of the Book Concern; Built up by the
preachers, and therefore, held in trust by them for two
holy uses; Its charity like Job; Its control by the ministry
praiseworthy; The mutilated resolution; The Court decrees
that the General Conference has no proprietary interest in
the Preaching Houses; Lay management of the largest
revenue of the Church 229
Principles op the Church Property Case.—Do civil law¬
yers understand Church polity better than judicious minis¬
ters? Legal opinions versus Church standard; Louisville
Conventions; Dr. Elliott and Hon. Rufus Choate against a
legal Fiction; The Church, South, did not recover its rights
upon false principles; The ease stated; Principles applica¬
ble to the Book Concern property, and inapplicable to
Church polity; Pleadings of counsel; Consent of a majority
in all departments of the Church to a division of the Book
viii
CONTENTS.
Concern Fund; Plan of separation contingent; Power as¬
cribed to General Conference wholly unfounded; The veto
pow.er of an Annual Conference; Protest of laity in the
case of a distinguished minister of the Georgia Conference;
Lawyers' opinion of a Church in the Methodist sense; No¬
tion that the General Conference could become Socinian,
or Baptist; Ministers of every Church can become Moham¬
medans; Another could and would; Methodist doctrines
not established by vote; The glory of Christ cannot be
voted away; Mr. Benson's testimony; Louisville Conven¬
tion; Opinion of the most distinguished lawyer in the
United States, the Hon. Rufus Choate; Methodism proceeds
on the plan of our grand secular union; The true sover¬
eign; The preachers in a mass, acting in obedience to the
wishes of the people; The Conference which organized Me¬
thodism was, in a remarkable degree, analogous to the
Convehtion which Created the Federal Constitution, in
1787; Annual and General Conferences subordinate agen¬
cies of the Church; Mr. Wesley testifies that some thousands
in the United States desired his adviGe; Eighty-three
preachers cannot be magnified into some thousands; Mr.
Choate's only error; The case proves the all-controlling
power of the laity
Miscellaneous.—Why Muncer's proclamation is quoted; Bap¬
tists not ranked with Campbellites; Concurrence with
Baptist luminaries; An answer; Another serious error;
Constituents of the Quarterly Conference; The preacher
has no vote in, the trial of a member; Logic of the exposure
of Baptist disorders
The Contrast.—The contrast twice dead; The Church legis¬
lates in minor matters only; Distinction between the pro
vince of human and divine legislation; How the discipline
was formed; Conference laws like Acts of Legislatures;
Discipline not amended; Duality of General Conference
jurisdictions demanded by the people; Bishop's term of
office like that of the supreme judges; Subject to a like
impeachment; General Conference constituted like the
United States Senate; Is one State nearly equal to thir¬
teen in the Southern Baptist Convention? Bishop's power
of removal less than the President's; Officers of Method¬
ism chosen as directly from the people as civil officers; The
right of petition as unbounded as iq Congress; An absurd¬
ity exposed; Mr. Wesley's advice; Bishops have no legis¬
lative powers ; Restrictions upon Annual and General
Conferences; What would dethrone Christ as King in Zion;
The only right of the clergy in Church buildings; The
contrast and the analogy, both exist in their proper places;
A pleasant close; The discussion useful; The pious will do
CONTENTS.
ix
good anywhere; Charity indispensable; The publication of
the discussion, without note or comment, proposed. . . . 254
REPLY TO LETTER VI.
Methodist Church Property Case Again.
Error must be removed before Truth can be established; No
foundation for Episcopacy in the Scriptures, according to •
its most able defenders; Time, place, and circumstances
supply its 'only defence; Manifest perversion and miscon¬
struction of arguments; The objects for which the Book
Fund was raised, not the subject of debate; Changing the
issue; Another specimen of Methodist logic; The "holy
charity" not too holy for lay management; A plain state¬
ment of the case; The.question at issue between the parties;
Decision of the court; Mr. Choate's " view of Method¬
ism " answered by Mr. Johnson, declared sophistical by
the court, and overruled; Difference between a General
Conference, possessing sovereign power, and the Congress
of the United States, possessing limited powers; Mr. Wes¬
ley's letter granting the request of his American children;
Application of the principles involved in the law suit to.
the entire system of Methodism; An inventory of facts; Are
legal gentlemen of the first distinction, and learned judges,
capable of understanding " the Book of Discipline" and
" the History of Methodism," when they are in evidence
before them? A trilemma; Some credit io due the solemn
decisions of our National Courts. 264
The Standards.—Another appeal to the standards, in search
of the " democratic element;" Watson's Theological Insti¬
tutes; Prof. C. F. Deems; Judge Longstreet; Lorenzo Dow;
Isaac Taylor; Rev. R. Abbey; Aristocracy; An interesting
experiment suggested; A transfer of property implies pro¬
prietorship; Protests; JudiciaJ exposition of Methodism; An
odium which is proof against all " protests;" The " could "
and the " would " of the General Conference not subject to
the Churches; Not likely that the same men would act
differently in a General and Annual Conference; Another
extract from the Opinion of the Court; Three remarkable
conclusions; How a cypher in the premises becomes " an
all-controlling" numerical number in the conclusion; An
improvement on Bishop Taylor's discovery of Truth with¬
out evidence; How a system of government which "has
no constituents" is "modified after our grand secular
union;" Synopsis . . 285
Miscellaneous.—Mr. Wesley, and not " the will of the laity,
acting through the ministry," the father of American Me¬
thodism; The Munster insurrectionists sustain no such rela-
X
CONTENTS.
tion to the Baptists; The authority of creeds; The Method¬
ist Church more holy than the Lord's table; The jurisdiction
of Quarterly and Annual Conferences; The Book of Disci¬
pline responsible for the error; The relative power of a
Methodist and Baptist pastor; "Anarchy and confusion,
called Baptist Church government;?' "Tastes.will differ;"
An illustrative anecdote 298
The Contrast.—A modest pledge; A wonderful draft upon
popular credulity; The voluntary adoption of a form of
government does not make it Republican; An essential
change in the constitution of Methodism not submitted to
the laity for confirmation; Judges and military officers not
law-making authorities; The constituents of a General
Conference and of the Congress of the United States con¬
trasted; Senate of the United States; Baptist Conventions
not legislative bodies, therefore, cannot infringe upon the
rights of the Churches; Seventh, eleventh, and fifteenth
points noii-identical with the fifth; Bishop Hamline sta¬
tioned td guard the eighth point; " Philadelphia Church
Advocate;" Question for- the Protestant Methodists to
answer; " Protests" vs. Facts; The " Standards;" Bishop
Bascom detailed to guard the fourteenth point; Clerical
absolutism; Trustees of Church property; Something about
"killing and plucking up by the roots," what the fathers
of "our Episcopacy" planted; The seventeen points sustain¬
ed; Mr. Hamill the antagonist of the Circuit Court of the
United States, not ours; An important concession the basis
of a strange conclusion; Was apostolic Church government
"a disjointed system of anarchy and confusion?" The
Church government adopted by Christ and his Apostles
preferable to that despotic "scheme yclept" Methodist
Episcopacy, fastened upon Methodists by Wesley and sixty
travelling preachers, in 1784; Proposition in regard to the
joint publication of the discussion; Concession to seaure
this; Reciprocal courtesy; Conclusion. 301
LETTER VIL
The Discussion.
Three errors of fact; Their correction requested 317
REPLY TO LETTER VII.
Misapprehension of argument; The " first error of fact" may
be corrected when the " standards" are mended, and the ju¬
dicial records of the countiy rectified; Second " error of
fact;" Third " error of fact;" The " seventh wonder;" Mu¬
tual call for the publication of the discussion, by Baptists
and Methodists 321
introduction;
In introducing the following pages to the public, it is proper that
we give a succinct statement of the origin of the discussion, as well
as the reasons which have induced us to publish it in this form.
In the month of April, 1855, an article was copied into the columns
of the ' South Western Baptist,' from the 'Western Watchman,' en¬
titled " Episcopal Methodism, anti-American." [The article from
the 'Western Watchman' is inserted in the volume, because of its
connection with'the discussion.] The pastor of the Methodist Epis¬
copal Church in Tuskegee, the Rev. E. J. Hamill, feeling that in¬
justice had been done his denomination in that article, wrote a reply
to it, which reply was countersigned by three members of his charge,
and offered it to the editors of the ' Baptist,' for publication. It
was cheerfully accepted; and ajthe junior editor of that paper, Rev.
J. M. Watt, was about retiring from his position, it devolved upon
the senior e'ditor to rejoin to that communication. The editor
felt called upon, in terms which he could not mistake, either to re¬
pudiate the article from the ' Watchman,' or to defend it. And
while he freely acknowledged that there was a portion of that ar¬
ticle obnoxious to the charge of injustice, from which he cheerfully
withdrew any implied endorsement which its simple republication
involved, he at the same time felt bound to maintain, that the main
scope of the argument it contained, was subject to no such charge,
and could be, in his opinion, successfully maintained. (Perhaps it
is due to the editor, to state, that the article from the ' Watchman'
was copied by his junior associate, and in print some time before he
saw it.) He therefore took the ground, " That the Episcopacy op
Methodism" is anti-Democratic and anti-Republican; that in so
b
xii
INTRODUCTION.
fab as its operation' is unrestricted by modifying agencies, it is
essentially and necessarily in direct antagonism to the genius
of our free institutions;" and thalits origin and history, up to this time,
had developed a series of facts and principles totally irreconcilable'wiih Ame¬
rican Democracy. On the other hand, the pastor of the Methodist
Episcopal Church maintained, That the analogy between the Me¬
thodist Episcopal Church Government and the government of
the United States, in those points in which the great Head of the Church
has allowed scope for human legislation, was striking. This position he
believed he could satisfactorily establish, and therefore felt bound
to accept the issue tendered in the above proposition by the senior
editor of the ' South Western Baptist,' The discussion which was
thus commenced, continued in the columns of the ' Baptist,' with
occasional intervals, until the latter part of November, 1855.
Such, in brief, is the history of the origin of a discussion, which
is now offered to the public in this form by the parties, in response
to the wishes of their respective denominations, which they do not
feel at liberty to disregard. As far as can be ascertained, some
seventeen Baptist Associations in Alabama, as well as the Florida
Baptist State Convention, have called on us to publish it in book
form. Several Quarterly Conferences of the Methodist Episcopal
Church, South, have united in the same request. A few extracts
from the 31inutes of some of these bodies, will furnish the reader
with our apology for consenting to its publication in this form:
From the Minutes of the Tushegee Association.
" We observe that a very able discussion has lately been carried
on through the columns of the ' South Western Baptist,' between the
editor and the Rev. E.- J. IIamill, relating to the organization and
government of a scriptural Church, and the claims of Episcopacy to
a gospel origin, and as contrasted with the genius of our [civil] in¬
stitutions. Your committee are of opinion that this discussion
should be published entire, and that such addenda be furnished by
the editor, Elder Samuel Henderson, as shall exhibit the teachings
of thp Scriptures as to the constitution and government of 5, pro¬
perly organized Church. Your committee would recommend the
adoption of the following resolutions:
INTRODUCTION.
xiii
" 1. Resolved, That this Association do most earnestly request the
editor of the ' South Western Baptist,' Eldc^ Samuel Hendedson, to
publish, in a more durable form, the discussion lately concluded be¬
tween himself and the Rev. E. J. Hamill, above alljided to, adding
thereto such remarks upon scriptural Church organization and dis¬
cipline as he may think expedient.*
" 2. Resolved, That the thanks of this Association, and of the de¬
nomination generally, are due to Brother Henderson, for the able
manner in which he has conducted sai'd discussion.
" 3. Resolved, That a committee of three be appointed by the chair,
to raise funds to aid Brother Henderson to publish said discussion
in book form."
Extract from the proceedings of the Fwrth Quarterly Conference, TusJcegee
Station, 31ethodist Episcopal Church, South.
" Whereas, a discussion has been going on for some time, in the
5 South Western Baptist/ between Rev. E. J. Hamill and Rev. Sam'l.
Henderson, on the question of the Republicanism of the govern¬
ment of the Methodist Episcopal Church: And whereas, we believe
the publication of this discussion in permanent form would promote
the interest of truth, and effectually defend our Church polity from
unjugt assaults; therefore,
"Resolved, By the members of the Fourth Quarterly Conference,
Tuskegee Station, Alabama Conference, Methodist Episcopal Church,
South, that we do recommend the publication of said discussion in
permanent form.
"Resolved, secondly, That the following persons, J. W. Willis, J. H.
Smith, and Dr. R. W. Howard, be appointed a committee to confer
with fhe Rev. Samuel Henderson, and other members of the Bap¬
tist Church, and take such steps as may be deemed necessary in or¬
der to secure the joint publication of the aforesaid discussion,"
* For the purpose of securing the co-operation of the Rev. Mr. Hamill and the Me-
thodist brethren, m the publication of the work, as well as to render it as acceptable as
possible to all parties, the Editor of the S. W. Baptist supposed that his brethren would
not take it amiss, if he declined acceding this request. He has in course of preparation
some articles on " Church Government," which he expects to publish in a separate
form, in the course of a few months.
xiv
INTRODUCTION.
From, the Minutes of the Coosa River Baptist Association.
" 1st. Resolved, That we highly approve both the spirit and ability
which Brother Henderson has evinced in- the late discussion in the
' South Western Baptist,' with the Rev. E. J. Hamill, on the ques¬
tion, "Is Methodist-Episcopacy, in its nature and tendencies, anti-
Democratic and anti-Republican,'-' and request that it be published
as early as possible, in a more durable form."
Tuskaloosa Baptist Association.
" 3. Resolved, That we have viewed with decided interest and sa¬
tisfaction, the progress and result of the late discussion on Methodist
Episcopacy, between the editor [of the ' S. W. Baptist,'] and Rev.
Mr. Hamill, of the Methodist Church; and believing that the cause
of truth would be subserved thereby, cordially unite in requesting
Brother Henderson to give it to the public in a more convenient
and" durable form."
Central Baptist Association.
* * * * " We are of opinion that the publication of that discus¬
sion, in book form, would greatly tend to promote the cause of truth.
We, therefore, recommend the adoption-of the following resolutions:
" 2d. Resolved, That the editor of the ' South Western Baptist' be
requested, at as early a day as will suit his convenience, to publish,
in book form, the discussion between himself and the Rev. Mr.
Hamill, of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, above alluded
to.
" 3d. Resolved, That a committee of three" be appointed at this
time, to procure subscriptions for said book."
Unity Baptist Association.
" Whereas, the discussion on Episcopal Church government, be¬
tween Revs. Samuel Henderson and E. J. Hamill, as recently pub¬
lished in the ' South Western Baptist,' has been conducted in a mild
ahd Christian-like manner, and believing that the same is worthy of
being placed in a more durable form;
"1. Resolved, That this Association most earnestly request the
Southern Baptist Publication Spciety to publish said debate, with
INTRODUCTION.
XV
such addenda as shall exhibit the teachings of the Scriptures, as to
the constitution and government of a properly organized Church,
as a part of the religious literature of the Baptist denomination.
" 2. Resolved, That the thanks of this Association are hereby ten¬
dered to Brother Henderson, for the able and Christian-like manner
in which he has conducted said discussion."
Alabama Baptist Association.
" We also recommend the publication of the late discussion in the
'South Western Baptist,' between the Rev. Samuel Henderson and
the Rev. E. J. Hamill, in book pamphlet form, with such additional
matter on Church government, as the said Rev. S. Henderson may
desire ,'r
Liberty Baptist Association, (Chambers County.) .
"Resolved, That it is the opinion of this body, that the publication
of the discussion recently concluded between Rev. S. Henderson
and Rev. E.J. Hamill, on the tendencies of " Methodist Episcopacy,"
would do much for the advancement of the cause of truth; that we
earnestly request Brother Henderson to publish the same in a dur¬
able form; that we will assist, as far as our ability will permit, in
its extensive circulation; and that a committee of three be appoint¬
ed to obtain subscribers to the work."
Salem Baptist Assoeiation.
"Resolved, That this Association regards the recent discussion in
the ' South Western Baptist,' between Rev. Samuel Henderson and
Rev. Mr. Hamill, on the subject of Methodist Episcopacy, as peculiarly
interesting to 'the Baptist denomination, and as calculated to en¬
lighten the people on that subject.
"Resolved, That we recommend the publication of said discussion
in a more durable form.
"Resolved, That we -appoint a committee of three to correspond
with Brother Henderson on the subject of its publication, and to
solicit subscriptions for the work."
Judson Baptist Association.
" 2. Resolved, That the Editor of the ' S. W. Baptist' be requested
to publish the discussion above alluded to in book form, at as early
a day as will suirt his convenience."
xvi
INTRODUCTION.
Were it necessary, similar extracts from the Minutes of many
other Associations could he made. We must add, however, that
the Baptist State Convention of Florida, at its recent session,
passed resolutions, "joining in the request of the various Associa¬
tions in Alabama," urging its publication. We would insert these
resolutions, but the Minutes of that body are not in our possession.
Oak Bowery Quarterly Conference, Methodist Episcopal Church, South.
" Whereas, a discussion has been going on for some time, in the
columns of the ' South Western Baptist,' between the Rev. E. J.
TTamtt.t. and the Rev. Sam'l Henderson, upon the question of the
Republicanism of Episcopal Methodism ; And whereas, we believe
its publication in permanent form would greatly promote the cause
of truth—would commend the beautiful Church polity of Method¬
ism to the admiration of the candid—and would effectually silence
the uDjust and groundless clamor against the Republicanism of Me¬
thodism, now heard from certain quarters: And whereas, the spirit
of charity permeating the discussion on both sides, is~a noble exam¬
ple of the christian forbearance we should exhibit toward our oppo¬
nents; therefore,
"Resolved, By the members of the Fourth Quarterly Conference,
Oak Bowery Circuit, Alabama Conference, Methodist Episcopal
Church, South, that we do concur with the Quarterly Conference of
the Tuskegee Station, Alabama Conference, in recommending the
publication of the aforesaid discussion, and in the adoption of such
measures as will secure the same.
SAM'L ARMSTRONG, P. E.
Jonathan Ware, Sec'y-"
Similar resolutions were passed by the Tuskegee Circuit, Ala¬
bama Conference. P. R. Applebv, Sec'y.
The pastor of the Methodist Church desires it to be remembered,
that the discussion was conducted in a Baptist journal, and was,
therefore, known to buf few of his Methodist brethren. And, more¬
over, his ministerial engagements and circumstances over which he
had no control, prevented his attendance at any Methodist Annual
INTRODUCTION.
xvii
Conference, and also at any other Quarterly Conference but his
own. Nevertheless, in addition to the endorsement of his articles,
and the demand for the publication of the discussion by three large
and respectable Quarterly Conferences, there are demands and sub¬
scriptions for the publication of the work from prominent members
of live other stations and circuits in the Alabama Conference of the
Methodist Episcopal Church, South.
It will be seen that the number, respectability, and earnestness
of the foregoing requests, emanating from the two denominations,
left the parties no alternative. That the subject discussed is one'of
vast importance, none will deny. Next to those vital principles in'
the christian economy, which relate immediately to the salvation of
the soul, all will confess that we .must place the relations, rights,
duties, and privileges of the citizenship of the commonwealth of
Israel. And any'effort, humble though it may be, which may serve
to develope these relations, rfghts and privileges, is not unworthy
the candid consideration of all right-minded christians. We flatter
ourselves that the following pages will not only serve some good
purpose in this respect, but that they will tend to allay the viru¬
lence of sectarianism—that moral canker which now so sadly mars
the beauty of Zion—and also illustrate a truth which many good
men are loath to believe, that religious controversy is not incom¬
patible with the mutual t exercise of the candor, forbearance, and
charity which should ever adorn the christian character.
We, therefore, commit this volume to the charitable indulgence
of those who have called for its publication, and to the care of Him
without whose blessing, all our labors are in vain.
E. J. HAMILL.
S. HENDERSON.
Tuskegee, January, 1856.
P. S. We have not felt at liberty to subject our articles to any
other revision than a bare correction of typographical errors.
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
From the Western Watchman.
EPISCOPAL METHODISM—ANTI-AMEKICAN.
" We are no Republicans, and never intend to be."—J. Wesley.
EPISCOPAL METHODISM IS ANTI-AMERICAN IN ITS SPIRIT AND
TENDENCY, AND A DANGEROUS FOE TO REPUBLICANISM.
1. Episcopal Methodism was antirAmerican in its origin in
this country.—In 1184, three regularly jordained clergy¬
men were sent over from England to this country, one
ofvhom had been ordained a bishop. This bishop or¬
dained one Francis Asbury as the bishop of the Methodist
Episcopal Church in America.* The first General Con¬
ference was held in Baltimore, 1184. This Conference
determined that the government of the Methodist Church
should be Episcopal—that is, a government of bishops.
Those who composed this Conference were ministers,
and only ministers, though there were 'then in the Me-
* Discipline. Part I. chap. i. sec. 1.
1
2
A DISCUSSION ON
thodist societies in the United States, 14,988 members !
Now, here we find that the people were never consulted
at the organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church
they had no representatives present. But a few min¬
isters of themselves framed the government without the
consent of the peoplej and have held all legislative, ju¬
dicial, and .executive prerogatives under their own con¬
trol ever since. By virtue of this usurped authority,
this body has imposed upon the people articles- of faith,
without either their advice or consent, and thus has vio¬
lated the free exercise of cpnscience, and the right of
private judgment on the part of the laity, in respect to
matters with which their personal salvation is insepar¬
ably connected. What more has the Papacydone'in
controlling the faith of its adherents.? Now, let any
one compare the above statement with the Declaration
of Bights adopted by the Continental Congress, October
14, 1114,* and he will find that the very acts of despot¬
ism of which our ancestors complained, and which led
to the adoption of our glorious Declaration of Indepen¬
dence, were perpetrated by these originators of Me¬
thodist Episcopacy in the United States. Americanism
recognizes the right of the people to frame their own
government. Episcopal Methodism violated this right
in its origin. It is, therefore anti-American in its
origin.
2. Episcopal Methodism is anti-American in the sup¬
port it gives to this unwarranted assumption of power.
* Declaration of Rights.—1!< Resolved, 4, That the foundation of
English liberty, and of all free government, is a right in the people
to participate in their legislative council."
METHODIST EPISCOPACY. a
The laws of the Methodist Episcopal Church are made
-by the General Conference. The General Conference
is composed of travelling preachers. The members of
the General Conference are appointed by the Annual
Conferences—the Annual Conferences are. composed ex¬
clusively of travelling preachers. No one can be elect¬
ed a member of the General Conference but a travelling
preacher. No one can vote for members of the General
Conference but travelling preachers.* The people have
no representatives in the law-making department; the
General Conference controls the entire Church, both in
its faith and practice, and thus destroys the very foun¬
dation of all religious liberty, and provides a basis for
the most absolute despotism. Is not this anti-Ame¬
rican?
"Again: the bishops aj-e appointed by the travelling
preachers. They hold their office during life, unless re¬
moved for crime. The destiny of all the itinerant preach¬
ers is placed in the bishop's hands ; from his decision
they have no appeal; they must either go to their ap¬
pointments or cease to be travelling preachers. This
places the preachers in a state of dependence on Epis¬
copal power. They can favor or oppress them in giving
them good or bad appointments. They can keep them
near home or send them far off. From these circum¬
stances the bishops acquire unlimited power over the
preachers and people. Now, let it be remembered that
this power is assumed—not delegated by the people ;
they have no representative—no voice—no vote in the
government of the Church or in the election of the
* Discipline. Pari I., chap, iii., sec. 2 and 3, ques. 1.
4
A DISCUSSION ON
bishops, who are the head of the Church ; and yet, by
their money and influence, they support this assumed
' power. Such support is anti-American.
3. Methodist Episcopacy is anti-American, because
the assumed power which it supports is frequently ex¬
ercised in an oppressive manner, and may at all times
be so exercised. The bishops possess unlimited power
over the preachers and the people. No appeal can be
made from the bishop's designation of a preacher to his
field of labor. The preacher may not wish to go to the
field assigned, and the Church may not desire to have
the preacher who is sent to them j but there is no ap¬
peal. Go he must, and have him the people mu§t, or
they are both liable to excommunication from the Me¬
thodist Episcopal Church. An instance or two will il¬
lustrate this point :
"At the session of the New York Conference, in 1839,
it was in some way intimated to the "Washington Street
Church, in Brooklyn, Long Island, that the Bev. B.
Griffin was to be appointed to that charge. The Church
accordingly, through a committee appointed for the pur¬
pose, presented itself before the bishop and remonstrat¬
ed against Mr. Griffin's being sent to them as their pas- •
tor. But the remonstrance was disregarded, and Mr.
Griffin was stationed at Washington' Street."
"At the-session of the New England Conference, in
1841, both of the large societies in Lowell, Mass., peti¬
tioned for particular preachers ; but they were told that
they should not have the men they asked for. One of
the Churches (St. Paul's) then requested to be left with¬
out a supply by the bishop—having made arrangements
to employ a local preacher. But the bishop regarded
METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 5
not the request, but forced a preacher upon them. In
both these cases the preachers petitioned for also added
their request to the Voice of the Churches ; so that the
wishes of both preachers and people were disregarded.
" The other Church, after being denied -the preacher
they wanted, selected some four or Eye others, and
stated tethe "bishop that they would be satisfied with
either of them. But no ; they must not have either ;
and, to cap the climax of insult, the very man was sent
them to whom they had ' objected. In consequence of
rejecting their preachers and electing others, they were
publicly 'declared to be without the pale of the Church.
This alarming step of excommunicating whole Churches
without the form of a trial, develops another of the anti-
American features of Episcopal Methodism—especially
when it is considered-that the subject was carried up to
the bishop, and he approved of it, and pronounced it
Methodism."*
I might multiply instances of this kind, but the limits
of this ttact will not permit. The simple fact, that the
power thus assumed by Methodist bishops, and counte¬
nanced and supported by the Episcopal Church, may, at
any time, be exercised oppressively, is sufficient to prove
that this system is anti-American ; for Americanism
makes no provision for the exercise of oppression, but
constantly guards against the abuse even of delegated
power. Episcopal Methodism, on the contrary, coun¬
tenances and supports the oppressive exercise' of as¬
sumed power. It is. therefore anti-American.
4. Episcopal Methodism is anti-American in its direct
* " Book for the Times," pp. 114-116.
6
A DISCUSSION ON
tendency to suppress freedom of speech and of the press.
That this is its tendency, no one acquainted with the
system can consistently deny. Let a number of mem¬
bers of an Episcopal Methodist Society express their
conviction that the government of their Church might
be bettered,—let them print their views and circulate
their opinions, and excommunication is the penalty at
once—either for orally discussing the matter, or print¬
ing their views. Suppose the press was under the con¬
trol of Episcopal Methodism, it could not utter a- senti¬
ment at variance with the "Discipline" without being
placed under interdict. A Methodist preacher cannot,
dare not publish a book that shall encourage free in¬
quiry into Episcopacy, or thajt will induce discussion
of its merits, without the fear of exclusion.* Now,
how does Rome prevent the freedom of the press where
she has not politica1! power ? By this- bugbear of excom¬
munication. Place the free press of America under the
control of Methodist Episcopal bishops, and there
could be no free discussion—Republicanism would be
strangled and the car of liberty rolled backward. The
Methodist Episcopal press now is under the control of
the bishops ; the editors of all tire papers, magazines,
books, tracts, -&c., are appointed by the Conference,
with the approbation of the presiding bishop.
* Discipline. Part III., chap, vi,, sec. 21.— "Any travelling
preacher who may publish any work or book of his own, shall be re¬
sponsible to his Conference for any obnoxious matter or doctrine
therein contained." Compare these facts with the following, in
the Declaration of Rights.—"Resolved: That the people have a right
peaceably to assemble, consider of their grievances, and petition
the King; and that all prosecution, prohibitory proclamations, and
commitments for the same are illegal."
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
1
If I am an American I must forget it in "becoming an
Episcopal Methodists If I love Republicanism, I must
not express my preference for it in the government of
the -Church of which I am a member. Freedom of speech
is denied me on pain of exclusion. To speak of Repub¬
licanism in Church government is to "sow dissension,"
and that is to be punished with excommunication.
Americanism encourages freedom of speech ^ Episcopal
Methodism suppresses it; it is, therefore, anti-American.
5. Episcopal Methodism is anti-American in support¬
ing the assumption of temporal power by its bishops.
Why is it that we fear Romanism ? Not simply because
the votaries of the pope yield assent to the ridiculous su¬
perstitions of their debasing religion; not simply because
their priests and bishops exercise oppressively an as¬
sumed power. This last feature is anti-American -in
Romanism as well as Episcopal Methodism; but this
does not trouble us. If Romanists or Methodists choose
to degrade themselves by submission to priests or
bishops, and voluntarily sacrifice that liberty which, as
freemen, they have a right to enjoy, it is their own
fault. But the supporting of assumptions to temporal
power is just cause of alarm. The effort of Romish
bishops to gain the control of all the Catholic Church
property, has been loudly decried, and some noble in¬
stances have occurred where even Roman Catholic con¬
gregations have determined, in the exercise of their
freedom as American citizens, to resist these arrogant
demands. But it seems to be forgotten .that Episcopal
Methodist bishops make the same demand, and this de¬
mand is submitted to without a murmur, by American
Methodists. Who hold the deeds for every inch of
8
A DISCUSSION ON
ground and every Episcopal Methodist Church in the
land ?—The Conference, alias the bishops. Where is the
Methodist Episcopal congregation that has dared to fol¬
low the example of the Roman Catholic congregations
above alluded to, in opposing this arrogant assumption
of temporal power ? Let Americans in the Episcopal
Methodist Church blush to be told that, with all their
boasted intelligence and freedom, they fear excommuni¬
cation from their bishops more than' Roman Catholics
feared the pope's nuncio, or the bulls of Pio Nono him¬
self.
A vast amount ef property is thus held under the con¬
trol of Methodist bishops. A lay member of the Church
has no voice in the disposition of funds which he him¬
self aided to raise. The preachers can dispose of it only
by suggesting the way in which it may be appropriated.
The bishops control it, and may designate it. us they
see -fit.
Now, is there no danger to American liberty from a
hierarchy possessing such ample pecuniary resources
as these ? Are the bishops of the Episcopal Methodist
Church so immaculately pure as to be beyond the reach
of selfish and sectarian preferences ?—May the time not
arrive when they will consider it to be their duty to use
their vast influence and assumed power in politics ?—
May they not conclude that they will be doing God ser¬
vice by using their influence to induce political action
which will favor Episcopal Methodism ?. The support
which they see the lay members ef their Churches giv¬
ing to their assumptions of temporal as well as spiritual
power, has a direct tendency to encourage them to ex¬
ercise that power in controlling the affairs of State for
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
9
their own advancement, and so as .to secure the continu¬
ance of their power unmolested. The man who can. see
and feel it right to exercise a bishop's office in the Epis¬
copal Methodist Church, can scarcely see i.t wrong to
exercihe- a monarch's office in the State ; for both are
alike, and equally anti-American. This leads me to the
second member of my proposition, viz :
EPISCOPAL METHODISM- IS A" DANGEROUS POE TO REPUBLICANISM.
I haye shown beyond dispute, that it is an ecclesias¬
tical despotism. Any one who will carefully examine
the system, will perceive that Eepublicanism and Epis¬
copal Methodism are perfectly antagonistic. Eepub¬
licanism a'dmits and insists on the right of the people to
frame the government under which they .are to live ; but
Episcopal Methodism acknowledges no such right. Ee¬
publicanism provides for the correction of abuses in ad¬
ministering government, by the frequent election of
law-makers by the voice of the people. Episcopal
Methodism places it beyond the power of the people to
change their law-makers, however oppressive their
enactments may be. Eepublicanism provides also for
the election, by the people, of executive and judicial
officers ; Episcopal Methodism assumes these powers
without consulting the people. In a Eepublic, the pub¬
lic moneys and public buildings are under the super¬
vision of the sovereign people ; but in the Methodist
Episcopal Church, these are controlled by the bishops.
In a Eepublic, the people choose their own public ser¬
vants ; but Episcopal Methodism forces on the people
such teachers as the bishop may choose to send them.
10
A DISCUSSION ON
I might go on and indefinitely exhibit the features of
antagonism between the two. But will not these suffice
for any unprejudiced, independent American ? Can it
be possible, then, that the influence of this anti-American
hierarchy can be anything but injurious to Republican¬
ism ? In ecclesiastical matters, the laity are but the
tools of the bishops and priests—they may become so in
political matters. It is a well known fact, developed in
the history of the world, that religious liberty must pre¬
cede civil liberty ; and it is no less true that an eccle¬
siastical despotism will, sooner or later, if permitted to
exert its influence unchecked, beget political despotism.
This is the direct tendency of Episcopal Methodism—
for if despotism be right in the Church it is right in the
State—if it be wrong in the State it is wrong in the
Church, But Episcopal Methodism declares it to be
right in the Ghurch; it must, therefore, encourage it in
the State. So far as the influence of Episcopal Method¬
ism extends, so far the true spirit of freedom is crushed,
and our Republicanism is endangered.
But again: the very organization of the Methodist
Episcopal Church is dangerous to the liberties of a free
people. Suppose a crisis to arrive in political action,
in which the hierarchy of the Methodist Church is inter¬
ested. From the dependence of all the parts on one
great central power, it is easy to perceive how the suf¬
frages of most of the members may be controlled by tjie
bishops. Let the bishop suggest to the presiding el¬
ders that the interests of their ecclesiastical despotism
will be subserved by the election of a certain set of men
to office ; the presiding elders use their influence over
the preachers, the preachers over the class-leaders, and
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
11
the class-leaders over their class-members, and thus the
balance of power in a political contest may rest in the
hands of seven Episcopal Methodist- bishops. There is
as much danger of this, as there is of Romanism accom¬
plishing a similar result, provided the Occasion requires
it. It may be said that the members of the Methodist
Episcopal Church are too independent to be thus influ¬
enced j but while they submit to the degradation to
Which I have shown they are subjected in Church mat¬
ters, let them not speak of independence in political
matters. Let them become ecclesiastically free, and
then it may be hoped that they would dare to. become
politically free, if the bishop undertook to prevent it.
I have thus briefly shown that Episcopal Methodism
is anti-American in its spirit and tendency, and that it
is a dangerous foe to Republicanism. I have shown
that it had its origin in usurpation ; that its very or¬
ganization provides for the support and extension of
assumed power, and that this power maybe oppressive¬
ly exercised without restriction. I have shown that
Methodist Episcopacy contains in itself the very ele¬
ments of an absolute despotism, and therefore must ul¬
timately, unless checked, subvert and destroy our Re¬
publican institutions. In doing this, I h^ve uttered no
harsh epithets ; I have insinuated nothing against the
scripturalness of Methodist doctrines, or the piety and"
godliness of Methodist Church members. I have sim¬
ply spoken as an American citizen, and I call on every
true American in the Methodist Episcopal Church to
use his influence to effect a radical reform in this mat¬
ter. The time has come when Americanism and Ro¬
manism are arrayed in hostile attitudes. Remember
12
A DISCUSSION ON
that you are not prepared to stand by Americanism
while you are the subjects of a hierarchy. The taunt
will come with irresistible force from the vassals of
the pope : "Is despotism any more sinful or dangerous
in the Romish Church than in, the Methodist?" Oh!
then, be Americans—be freemen—throw off your eccle¬
siastical chains, and-then you will be prepared consis¬
tently to aid your fellow countrymen in breaking the
yoke of ecclesiastical despotism with which Rome has
bound her ignorant and degraded subjects !
April 19th, 1855.
METHODIST EPISCOPACY
13
LETTER I.
EPISCOPAL METHODISM NOT ANTI-AMERICAN.
Wesley's• loyalty; Metkodists love their doctrines; General Con¬
ference cannot change doctrines; Ministers called-of God, and
sent out by His people ; Two orders in the ministry; Bishop
Samline's resignation ; Apostolic itinerancy; Lay delegation;
Peculiar institution ; A Bishop has no vote ; Members tried by
their Societies; Freedom of Opinion; Appointing power of
Bishops exercised wisely; Bishops hold no Church property;
Morbid imagination.
Rev. Messrs. Henderson and Watt ;
Dear Sirs: I find in your paper of the 19th April, ap
article with the caption, " Episcopal Methodism—Anti-
American," taken from the Western Watchman," re¬
flecting severely upbn the Church polity of Methodism.
I should not deem the .article worthy of a reply, but for
its serious publication in so respectable a journal as the
Southwestern Baptist.
I shall t)ffer no comment upon the presumption or ma¬
lignity, which could venture to misrepresent so grossly,
the Church government and patiubtism of the largest
body of Christians in the United States, but shall briefly
state the theory of Methodism, upon the points in
question.
And first,—It is true that John Wesley, the Methodist,
as well as Rev. Thomas Chalmers, the Presbyterian, and
2
14
A DISCUSSION ON
Rev. Robert Hall, the Baptist, were good subjects of the
English monarchy ; and this being the* case, They were
not culpable in obeying the injunction " to fear God and
honor the King."
Se'condly,'—The charge that the Methodist ministry
" has imposed upon the people articles of faith without
their consent," is absurd. Is it possible for any sane
mind to believe that the Methodist Church swells her
numbers by force ? ! ! !
Thirdly,—There is no power in any of our Church
Courts to change our articles of faith. On page 29,
Methodist Discipline, we read, " the General Conference
shall not revoke, alter, or change our articles of reli¬
gion, nor establish any new standards or rules of doc¬
trines."
This restrictive rule rests upon the fact, that we be¬
lieve our articles of religion, and rules of doctrines are
taught in the Bible ; and we do not presume to think
we can improve Divine legislation.
Fourthly,—We believe our ministry must be called of
God; the evidences of this call, are gifts, grace, and
fruit; the judge of this evidence, is the society of which
the candidate for the ministry is a member; hence, in
the Methodist Church, no one can be admitted into the
ministry without the recommendation of the laity.
Fifthly,—Our Church teaches, and our standard writ¬
ers contend, that there are but two orders in the minis¬
try, viz., dea'cons and elders; and that Presbuteros and
Episcopos, are terms used interchangeably, in the Mew
Testament, to express the same office. A single fact in
the history of Methodism, will show our view of minis¬
terial grades more clearly than many arguments.
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
15
Bishop Hamline, of the Northern Methodist Church, a
man of the purest character, voluntarily resigned his
Episcopacy, and is now acting simply as a Methodist
Presbyter. Hence, our ppisdopacy is a mere superin¬
tendence or presidency ; a hind of permanent modera-
torship.
Sixthly,—"We believe that the distribution of our
ministers to their several fields of labor,, upon the itiner¬
ant plan, is the best mode of imitating the Apostles,
who went from city to city—a mode admirably adapted
to spread scriptural holiness through the lands—and
we also think that this distribution of the ministers, and
the laws regulating this itinerancy, should be made
with a conscientious regard for the well-being of the
whole Church, but, by those only, who submit to the
sacrifices of the itinerancy, and upon whom these laws
mainly operate, namely, the ministry ; nevertheless, in
all other enterprises, financial or otherwise, in which the
laity are equally concerned with the ministry, we admit
lay delegation ; for instance, in the commission to lo¬
cate the contemplated Male College of the Alabama
Conference, to meet in Summerfield next July, we have
two lay delegates- for one ministerial delegate. We
have also in our Conferences, joint Boards of Finance,
composed equally of laymen and ministers.
Seventhly,—We have an institution, peculiar to Me¬
thodism, which, places all ranks of our ministry upon
the same platform ; that is, all, from the lowest to the
highest, have to pass through a periodical examination
of character. At our General Conferences, a Committee
on Episcopacy, composed of the very men over whom
the bishops preside in their several Annual Conferences,
16
A DISCUSSION ON
review the entire judicial acts and personal character of
all our bishops ; they summon the bishops before their
bar at pleasure, and freely censure or approve, as seem-
eth good in their sight. It will not be forgotten by the
Southern people, that it was a too free exercise of this
power over the bishops, in the case of the excellent
bishop J. 0. Andrew, on account of his connection with
slavery, which divided our Chfrrch into the two great
branches, Northern and Southern.
Eighthly,—There is but a single officer In our Church
who is denied the privilege of voting in any and all of
our Church Courts, and that is a bishop, who has not
even the casting vote in our General or Annual Confer¬
ences, or in any other Church body.
Ninthly,—No member in our Church can be tried or
expelled by any minister, or body of ministers, but only
by a jury of his peers—the members of the society to
which he belongs.
Tenthly,—The charge that "freedom of speech upon
Church matters, is interdicted upon pain of exclusion,"
the facts in the case will show to be utterly groundless.
It is true, we would allow no man, to promulge Uni-
tarianism or Universalism, and still retain his member¬
ship with us. For any evangelical denomination to
suffer this, would be to abandon Christianity ; but upon
the minor questions, which may naturally arise among
those who have adopted the same faith and practice,
the freest expression of sentiment is indulged without
blame.
The free discussion in the General Conference of 1844,
upon the question whether or hot the Conference could
suspend Bishop Andrew, without the least charge
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
11
against his moral character, which was really done,
and the proposition introduced by Df. Smith, of Virginia,
into the General Gpnference of 1850, at St. Louis, to re¬
model our whole General Conference system, so as to
have two houses instead of one, and in a form analagous
to the House of Representatives and Senate of the Unit¬
ed States; these facts, with the abundant memorials
sent up to every General Conference, are ample testi¬
mony that the widest latitude of opinion is enjoyed by
our entire, membership, without censure. I may also
add, in contradiction to a reckless statement of the
writer in question, that the editors-* of all our papers,
magazines, books, tracts, &c., are elected by the Gene¬
ral Conference, whether from the ranks of the itinerancy
or from other departments, as they please, and without
the slightest reference to the wish of the bishops. Dr.
Bond, the editor of the Christian Advocate and Journal,
in New York, is not a member of any Annual Confer¬
ence whatever.
Eleventh,—>-Of the charge that the power of the bishop,
with the aid and advice of the presiding elders, to make
appointments, "is frequently exercised in an oppressive
manner," I remark, if the writer had said, that those
who are voluntarily subject to this power are not unfre-
quently called to make sacrifices, in going to the moun¬
tains and swamps, and frontier wilds, to preach the gos¬
pel to every creature, this is unquestionably true ; but
that the acts of these honored men of God, are ever in¬
tentionally oppressive, is incredible. It is reasonable to
assume that these men desire, at least, to, promote the
interests of Methodism, and will therefore use that
power, which they hold under strict responsibility, to
18
A DISCUSSION ON
accomplish this design, and net to defeat it by glaiing
oppression. Can it be possible, then, that such men
would adopt the suicidal policy with which they are
charged ? No ! it were impossible, except they were
destitute not only of moral character but of reason also.
Twelfth,—The charge that "Methodists degrade them¬
selves by submission to bishops, and-that no Methodist
congregation has dared to follow the example of some
Roman Catholic congregations, in opposing the demand
of our bishops to control all the Methodist Church pro¬
perty, moneys, and buildings;" this is a charge so utter¬
ly astounding to me, that I almost feel wanting in self-
respect to formally deny it. But, as Solomon says—
" answer a fool according to his folly,"—I therefore say
that our bishops have not- a solitary cent's worth of in¬
terest in our entire Church property. Let any one look
at the deeds of the "Methodist Church in Tuskegee, and
of the new Methodist College erecting in our town. The
proof is at hand.
Lastly,—It is charged " that the balance of power, in
a political contest, may rest in -the hands of seven Me¬
thodist bishops ; they may sug*gest to the presiding el¬
ders, these may exercise their influence over the preach¬
ers, these again over the class-leaders, and these last
over the class members thus " the suffrages of most of
the members may be controlled by the bishops, for the
election of a certain set of men to office," and therefore,
"Methodist Episcopacy must ultimately, unless checked,
destroy our Republican institutions."
This accusation is in full proof that the writer of the
article you have copied from the Watchman, is a man
of wonderfully creative imagination, DeQuincy's Opium
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
19
Eater never saw horrid images come trooping more ra¬
pidly before his fancy. He should be classed with the
most-inventive of the poets, but for his hypochondriac-
ism—a little medical treatment would be of service to
him. May he live forever,! But poetry aside ; to affirm
that I, for instance, could control the votes of such men
as David Clopton, Judge Dougherty, J. B. Bilbro, and
Wm. H. Stafford ; and that these can in turn influence
the votes of such class-members as J. W. Willis, Robt.
F. Ligon, James A. Smith, J. D. Porter, and other Me¬
thodists ; to affirm this, I say, is about as generous, as
just, and as true, as it would be solemnly to assert that
the Rev. Samuel Henderson can control at his pleasure,
the votes of such Baptists as Chief Justice Chilton,
Chancellor Mason, Dr. Battle, and others. I confess,
Messrs. Editors,* with these facts before me, which I
stand ever ready to defend, I was net a little surprised
that the article thus reviewed, should have been admit¬
ted into the columns of the Southwestern Baptist. As
an act of justice to your fellow citizens, X respect¬
fully ask the publication of this article in your paper.
Respectfully yours, &c.
E. J. HAMILL,
Paster of the. M. E. Church, Tuskegee, Ala.
May 3tCl855.
We, the undersigned, respectfully request the publi¬
cation of the foregoing in the South Western Baptist.
Robert L. Mays,
John B. Bilbro,
David Clopton.
20 A DISCUSSION ON
REPLY TO LETTER I.
Courtesy Extended ; Two enquiries ; Great names do not change
Error into Truth ; The power of a religious theory true^r false,
in the formation of character ; Our Position Defined ; Lexico¬
graphical definition of terms; Application of these definitions
to the subject in debate Annual and General Conferences com¬
posed only of bishops and travelling preaehers; Exclusion of lay¬
men from these bodies ; The clergy the basis of representation;
Episcopacy never to be changed ; An effort to change it rebuked;
The legislative,' executive, and judicial departments of govern¬
ment all filled exclusively by the clergy; Dr, Bascom's opinion j
Methodist Episcopacy deprives laymen of the right of choosing
their own pastors ; Anecdotes of Dr. Rlppon and Robert Hall; The
argumentum ad hominem; .Extent of our endorsement of the
article from the Western Watchman.
It always affords u,s pleasure to open our columns do
any person or community to .vindicate themselves from
intentional or unintentional misrepresentation. The ar¬
ticle to which the foregoing communication refers, pur¬
ports to have been written by an American citizen. It
is assumed that he has most grossly, wantonly, and
malignantly assailed the Methodist Episcopal Church.
Far be it from us to be the fneaps of circulating pre¬
sumptuous and malignant misrepresentations " of the
largest body of Christians in the United States." We
can assure our good Brother Hamill, that, welcome as
he is to our columns, he would have been still more wel-
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
21
come, had he not appended the endorsement to his com¬
munication, of the three very respectable names, to se¬
cure its publication. Highly as we respect these gen¬
tlemen, all of whom are members of the Methodist Epis¬
copal "Church, we beg leave to assure them that their
honored pastor is always welcome to our columns, with¬
out any endorsement. We hope, therefore, "that he will
never again submit our mutual respect for each other
to such an unnecessary implication.
It is not our purpose to answer in detail the thirteen
points embraced in Brother Hamill's communication/as
it would introduce a range of discussion too extensive
for a single article. And moreover we are content that
the article from the Watchman, and the present one,
shall stand or fall on their own merits. We shall, there¬
fore, confine our remarks to two very simple enquiries ;
these are—
First,—Is the Episcopal feature of the Methodist
Church a legitimate subject of newspaper discussion ?
Secondly,-—Is Church polity, as an element in the fori
mation of political character, of sufficient importance to
merit the attention of the politician and statesman Z
And let it be distinctly premised here, that it is not
the piety, or even the doctrines of the Methodist Church
that we are now to discuss. No Protestant recognizes
the seraphic piety and the evangelical doctrines of a
Fenelon and a Bossuet in mitigation of the tyranny and
crimes of the Roman Catholic hierarchy. Our remarks
will be confined to the isolated topic of Episcopacy.
The most illustrious names of this, or any other age,
never converted one error into a truth. And he who ex¬
pects to shield an error behind the prestige of great and
22
A DISCUSSION ON
good names, no matter if they are as numerous as the
stars of heaven, has sadly mistaken the age in which
he lives. Whatever of charity we owe to men's per¬
sons, it is certain we owe none to their errors. He who
compromits a'principle out of complaisance to any man
of set of men, is unworthy to he trusted, either by God
or man. But to our first enquiry :
Is the Episcopal features of the Methodist Church a le¬
gitimate subject for newspaper discussion ? Now, we
aver that it is ; as much so, indeed, as the ecclesiastical
polity of any other denomination on earth. It is a trans¬
plant from a foreign to an American soil, and is no more
exempted from the ordeal of criticism and serious inves¬
tigation, than any other article of foreign manufacture.
-That its type is the Episcopal Churph of England, the
established religion of that realm, we presume its most
devoted friends will not question. It is not sacrilege
for an American citizen to question the right of the
clergy to rule a constituency numbering nearly a mil¬
lion and a half. But we will not suppose that our Me¬
thodist brethren will claim this exemption; and we need
not seriously argue it.
We come now to consider the second question proposed
—Is Church polity, as an element in the formation of
political character, of sufficient importance to iherit the
attention of the politician and statesman ? We think
that it is. Ever since the days of Constantine, ecclesi¬
astical power has been invoked by secular princes, as
an essential element in the government of their sub¬
jects. It is at this day recognized by every despot of
Europe, not only as an organic law of his government,
but as being essential to enforce his authority. It can-
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
23
not be denied that religion, whether pure and undefiled,
or perverted and corrupted, is the most powerful agency
which has ever been brought to bear upon human cha¬
racter. Its unholy and corrupting alliance with-every
government in Europe, is a recognition of this truth.
Even the infidel, Hobbes, defended religion on the ground
that it was an essential auxiliary in the hands of kings
to rule their subjects. Like the devil and his angels,
who lost not their power by the fall, religion loses not
its power by being corrupted and perverted to the bas¬
est-of purposes. The most virulent, merciless, and vin¬
dictive persecutions which have ever darkened the pages
of Church history, have emanated from a corrupt Chris¬
tianity. The reason of this is obvious. Religion, based
as it is upon the highest authority in the universe, ap¬
peals to and develops the strongest principles and pas¬
sions of the human soul; and these become correspond-
ingly potent for good or for evil, according to the power
that directs them. "When you appeal to a man's religi¬
ous prejudices, you appeal to the highest principles and
motives that can operate upon moral agents. 'This, we
say, is both objectively and subjectively a necessary
truth.
Now' we boldly and fearlessly take the ground, that
the Episcopacy of Methodism is a'nti-Democratic, and anti-
Republican—that* in so far as its operation is unrestric¬
ted by modifying agencies, it is essentially and neces¬
sarily in direct antagonism with our "free institutions.
We are aware, that in taking this ground, we are sub¬
jecting ourselves to much unmerited censure—the cen¬
sure of those-who cannot, or more properly will not, dis¬
criminate between persons and principles. We are
24
A DISCUSSION ON
aware that there are those who will regard us as attack¬
ing, not a solitary principle in the system of "the largest
denomination of Christians in the United States," hut as
denouncing the entire membership of that denomination
as anti-Democratic. But this has no terrors to us. We
shall fearlessly speak what we believe to be the truth,
be the consequences what they may. We hope to do
so, however, in the spirit of the Gospel.
As words .are the signs of"ideas, the most obvious
method we can pursue in this investigation is, in the
first place, to ascertain the meaning of terms. Pursu¬
ing this course, we turn to our great national standard,
Webster's Dictionary, and find the following definitions
of the terms involved in this discussion :
"Democracy, 11., government by the people ; a form of
government in which the supreme power is lodged in the
hands of the people collectively, or in which the people
exercise the powers of legislation."
" Republic, n., a commonwealth ; a state in which the
exereise of the sovereign! power is lodged in the hands
of representatives elected by the people," &c.
"Episcopacy, n., literally, oversight, or careful inspec¬
tion applied particularly to the government of the
Church by bishops or prelates."
" Episcopal, a., belonging to, or vested in, bishops or
prelates5 2, governed by bishops."
Now, when we assert that the Episcopal feature of
the Methodist organization is anti-Democratic and anti-
Republican,- we are but asserting what every school¬
boy may know in five minutes by turning to his dic¬
tionary—that a form of government in which the su¬
preme power is lodged in the hands of bishops or pre-
METHODIST EPISQOPACY,
25
lates, the clergy, is in manifest antagonism with that
form of government in which such power is lodged in
the hands of the people, or of representatives elected by
the people. It were absurd to say that two such prin¬
ciples ever can harmonize. If the bill of rights set
forth in the preamble of all our civil constitutions, State
and National,4 asserts a truth, that " all power is inherent
in the people" then we maintain that a government in
which the people have no voice, practically sets that
truth at defiance.
Who compose the annual and quadrennial Conferences
of the Methodist Episcopal Church ? Let the Discipline
answer :—" Quest. 8. Who shall attend the yearly Con¬
ferences ? Ans. All travelling preachers in full connec¬
tion, and those who are to be received into full connec¬
tion."—p. 23. Again : " Quest. Who shall compose the
General Conference^ and what are the regulations and
powers belonging to it ? Ans. 1. The General Confer¬
ence shall be composed of one member for every twenty-
-©ne members of each Annual Conference, to -be appoint¬
ed either by seniority or choice, at the discretion of such
Annual Conference": yet so that such representatives
shall have travelled qt least four full calendar years
frdfn the time they were received on trial by an Annual
Conference, and are in full- connection at the time of
holding the Conference."—p. 20. And on page 21, on de¬
fining the limitations- and restrictions of the powers of
a General Conference, the following items occur :—" 3.
They shall not change or alter any part or rule of our
government, so as to do away Episcopacy, or destroy the
plan of our itinerant general superintendency. 4. They
shall not revoke or change the general rules of the
3
26
A DISCUSSION ON
United Societies. 5. They shall not do away the privi¬
leges of our ministers or preachers, of trial ty a com¬
mittee, and of an appeal; neither shall they do away the
privileges of our members, of trial before the society, or
by a committee, and of an appeal."
Now, observe, first, that the Annual Conference is
composed, ex officio, of the clergy under appointment of
the bishops in that Conference. Even local preachers,
no matter what their piety and talents may be, have no
voice in its councils. Observe, secondly, that the basis
of representation in a General Conference, is—not the
membership of the Church, but the aforesaid clergy in
each State. In neither an Annual or General Confer¬
ence is the voice of a layman or his representative ever
heard, unless it be by petition—a right which the most
perfect despot will allow his subjects. Observe, third¬
ly, that this distinct feature of the Methodist Church is
never to be changed. The General Conference must not
"do away Episcopacy." It is recognised as an essential
organic law of the system, to do away with which, would
dissolve the whole fabric. That is to say, the recogni¬
tion of the rights of the people, the private- members, to
a representation in the Annual and General Conferences,
would be the death-knell of Methodist Episcopacy ! The
fathers of this Church have taken the special pains to
throw around this special feature of Methodism, the
sanctity and power of an irrevocable decree ! 1 Any
effort to change it meets with a stern rebuke—such as
was administered by the General Conference, in 1824,
and in 1828, at which a large and respectable body of
ministers were expelled from the body, who subsequent¬
ly formed the Methodist Protestant Church of the United
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
21
States. Call you this Republican Democracy ? A nu¬
merous and respectable body of'ministers and. laymen,
from different parts of the United States, petition the
General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church
so to modify its basis of representation as to permit the
voice of its laymen to be heard in its counsels, is re¬
buked and denounced as schismatical and heretical, and
a solemn act of exclusion is pronounced against them !
And yet there is nothing in Methodist Episcopacy but
what harmonizes most beautifully with American De¬
mocracy ! And when we quote the ^ery language of
the illustrious founder of Methodism, John Wesley,—
" We are not Republicans, and never intend to be,"—
and when we attempt to point out the features of Me¬
thodist polity which antagonize with the genius of our
free institutions, why, we have a " wonderfully creative
imagination. DeQuincy's Opium Eater never saw such
horrid images as come trOopiog • - . before his fancy.
A little medical-treatment is" the proper remedy for
such a distemper ! All "poetry" Brother Hamill. It
would tax "the most inventive of the poets"—nay,
much more inventive than have produced an " Iliad " or
a *' Paradise Lost," we opine, to discover the Democracy
of Methodist Episcopacy. What an interesting task
that would be for an American citizen to sit down to the
serious matter of showing that a government by bishops
and clergy -was perfectly consistent, nay, synonymous
with government by the people—that a representation
based upon the clergy was equivalent to a representation
based upon the people, the private membership of the
Church—that a legislative body in which the voice of the
people is never heard, or if heard, is only heeded" as a mat-
28
A DISCUSSION ON
ter of grace, is equivalent to a legislative body in which
the people collectively'exercise the controlling power !.
Again : government is divided into three departments
—Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. But in neither
of these departments are the private members of the
Methodist Episcopal Church represented. They have no
power either to make, expound or execute the law. Even
if they pronounce the solemn act of exclusion against a
member, it is subject to appeal, and may be reversed
by the bishop or bishops : and " the word of a" bishop
" is the end of all strife." And that we may not he
considered uncharitable in this remark, we -make the
following extract from the late Bishop Bascom's " De¬
claration of the-Rights of Man." Let every Methodist
read and ponder it well. If he will not hear the word
of a bishop, (written to-he-sure before he became a bishop,
yet not the less authoritative with American readers on
that account,) he surely will not he persuaded by an
humble Baptist editor. But to the extract:
"Art. 6. A government uniting legislative, judi¬
cial, and executive- powers in the hands of the same
men, is an absurdity in theory, and, in practice, tyranny.
The executive power, in every government, should be
subordinate to the legislative, and the judicial independ¬
ent of both. Whenever, therefore, it happens that these
three departments of government are in the hands of the
same body of men, and these men not the representa¬
tives of the people—first making the laws, then execut¬
ing them, and finally the sole judges of their own acts,
there is no liberty ; the people are virtually enslaved,
and liable to he ruined at any time. In a government,
civil or ecclesiastical, where the same men are legisla¬
tors, administrators, and judges, in relation to all the
laws, and every possible application of them, the people
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
29
whether well or ill treated, are in fact slaves ; for the
only remedy against such a despotism is. revolt No
constitution can he presumed -a good one, embodying
the principles of correct government, which does not
sufficiently guard against the chances and possibility of
mal-administration. All absolute governments owe
their character to the manner in which they are admin¬
istered; whereas, in a representative government, with
proper checks and balances, it is the interestj even of
the vicious, to ^promote the general welfare, by conform¬
ing to the laws. The greater the equality established
among men by governments, the more virtue and happi¬
ness will prevail ; for'where the voluntary consent of the go¬
verned is the basis of government, interest and duty combine to
•promote the common weal."
Finally. Methodist Episcopacy deprives the mem¬
bership of that Church of the right of choosing their
own pastors—a right as dear to the Lord's "freed men"
as any with which they are invested fn the New Testa¬
ment. The Churches sometimes petition the bishop for
some particular person -of their choice, but how often
are their wishes disregarded ! We recollect some year
or two since, of reading in one of the regular journals
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, some serious articles
against the policy of yielding to this, the most humble
method of expressing' a wish, in which the ground was
taken, if we remember correctly, that if the thing was
not stopped, it would virtually "do away with Episco¬
pacy." And yet we are called upon to believe—nay,
we are considered very uncharitable and bigoted if we
will not believe—that a church organization in which
the right of the laity to choose their own pastors—those
who are to break to them the bread of eternal life, and
who are to be supported by their money, and assisted
30
A DISCUSSION ON
by their prayers and sympathies—is absolutely denied,
is, nevertheless, quite consistent with American Demo¬
cracy !
But, says Brother Hamill, " John Wesley, the Method¬
ist, Thomas Chalmers, the Presbyterian, -and Robert
Hall, the Baptist, were good subjects o£ the English
Monarchy." True, they were ; they "\W3re mindful of the
Divine injunction, "fear God and honor the King." But
is not Brother Hamill aware that the form of Church Go¬
vernment recognized by Hall, was as pure a Democracy
as that recognized by Baptist Churches, even in- the
United States—and that it has been mainly through the
agencies of such men as Robert Hall, - and the Indepen¬
dents of England, that the act of non-conformity was
extorted from the British crown, conferring the Tight
to worship, God according to the dictates of one's own
conscience ! And let it never be forgotten that, in our
struggle for independence, the Baptists and Independents
of Great Britain were universally on our side. Dr. Rip-
pon, pastor of a Baptist Church iu London, writing to
Dr. Baldwin, pastor of a Baptist Church in Boston, dur¬
ing the Revolutionary war, says to him—" When the
king's armies prevail, there is the cry of mourning, la¬
mentation and woe amongst us ; but when the Ameri¬
can army prevails, there -is the -shout of kings in our
camps." Robert Hall, the father of the distinguished
orator, and one of the most eloquent Baptist ministers
of his age, was an open and avowed friend of the Colo¬
nies. The following anecdote of him and Dr. Ryland, is
worth relating :
^ne evening our conversation turned on the subject
of the war with America, previously to the acknowledg-
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
31
ment of the Independence of the United States. Mr.
Hall Said ' Sir, that war was very unpopular, and con¬
sidered to be very unrighteous by men of true liberty
principles. My father, sir, warmly advocated the Ame¬
rican cause. When I was a little boy, he took me to
the school of Mr. Ryland, at Northampton, the father of
Dr. Ryland, of Bristol; this Mr. Ryland was very eccen4
trie, and a violent partizan of the Americans; it was in
the hottest period of the war, sir, and many persons
were very indignant at the conduct of the English Go¬
vernment. That war, sir, was considered as a crusade
against the liberty of the subject and the rightsof man.
The first night we. arrived at Northampton, from Arns-
by, sir, the two old gentlemen (my father and Mr. Ry¬
land) talked over American politics until they both be¬
came heated, on the same side of the question. At
length Mr. Ryland burst forth in this manner : ' Brother
Hall, I will tell you what I would do if I were General
Washington.' 'Well,' said my father, -'what would you
do V 1 Why, Brother Hall, if I were General Washing¬
ton, I would summon all the American officers ; they
should form a circle around me, and I would address
them, and we would offer -a libation in our .own blood,
and I would order one of them to bring a lancet and a
punch-powl ; and he should bleed us all, one by one, in¬
to this punch-bowl; and I would be the first to bare my
arm; and when the punch-bowl was full, and we had all
been bled, I would call upon every man to consecrate
himself to the work, by dipping his sword "into the bowl,
and entering into a solemn covenant engagement by
oath, one to another, and would swear by Him that sits
upon tM throne and liveth forever and ever, that we would
never sheath our swords while there was an English
soldier in arms remaining in America ; and this is what
I would do, Brother Hall.'"—Greenes Reminiscences of
Robert Hall.
But we must conclude. Brother Hamill seems to con¬
sider that it is quite Democratic that the trusteeship
32
A DISCUSSION ON
and location of Colleges should be placed in the bands
of a majority of laymen. Pardon us, Brother Hamill,
if we say this has nothing to do with the subject. We
are discussing the power of the bishops and clergy over
Churches, not Colleges. The privilege of locating a
College," or of being a trustee of it when located, has
about as much to do with the Episcopal government of
your Church, as the appointment of a servant to supply
your Annual Conference with water. The Methodist
Episcopal Church was-no more organized to erect Col¬
leges than any other Church. The subject of education
in that, as in all other denominations, is an appendage,
and enters not into its organic features.
Let us not be misunderstood or misrepresented. The
question is not whether Brother Hamill or ourself could
control the votes of such men as he names in his com¬
munication. This is an argumentum ad hominem, a mode
of argument usually resorted to for the want of a better;
but the question is, whether a civil government, organ¬
ized upon the principles of Methodist Episcopacy, could
be called with propriety a Democratic Republican Go¬
vernment ? We say it could not How far we have
proved this, is left to the candid reader.
As to the article to which Brother Hamill replies, as
copied froip. the Watchman into our paper, it contain¬
ed matter proper to be published. It does not follow
that editors are considered as endorsing all the senti¬
ments contained in every article copied into 'their paper.
Nor is it incumbent on them to sift and criticise each
argument which such selections may contain. So far as
the article in question favors an assault upon Methodist
Episcopacy at the ballot box, we repudiate it, for in
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
38
voting, we never enquire as to what Church a man be¬
longs ; but whether he is honest and capable, and
whether his views upon important political questions
correspond with our own. With respect, however, to
the position, which is the leading idea contained in the
article, and which we have above discussed, we believe
it to be true, and can maintain it.
34
A DISCUSSION ON
LETTER IL
METHODIST EPISCOPACY NOT ANTI-REPUB¬
LICAN.
Christian discussion profitable ; Foreign topics ; The Bible and its
Episcopacy a foreign importation ; Mormon the only system of
religion of American origin ; Mistakes corrected ; The advantages
ofTtinerancy The Democratic principle acknowledged, that none
should make laws but those who are subject to them ; Itinerants
made such by the people; Itinerants constitute their officers like
legislatures; Power of the General Conference over bishops;
Four points in which Church government should be unlike civil
government; Methodist Church government bears a proper ana¬
logy to our Federal Government; Fancy sketch of the youth,
Bascom ; Anecdote ; Paul's definition of Episcopos; The Baptist
discipline ; Government it describes unlike our civil government;
A sad picture ; An wra-Republican feature; Robert Hall's view of
close communion.
" He that is first in his own cause seeraeth just, but his neighbor cometh aud search,
eth him."—Proverbs.
Dear Brother Henderson :
I thank you for your kind regard, and hope the fra¬
ternal feelings cherished for each other, for many years,
will not suffer abatement in our discussion. The en¬
dorsement of my article by my brethren, was proper,
METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 35
because the writer reviewed by me had attempted to
degrade them politically. • In the present case it i& un¬
necessary^ and unendorsed. I cordially accept the invit¬
ation you have freely accorded me, to a place in your
columns. Discussion, conducted upon righteous prin¬
ciples, is always profitable. Paul disputed daily in the
school of one Tyrannus, and this continued by the space
of two years ; so that nil they which dwelt in Asia heard
the word of the Lord—a truly blessed result. And so
it has ever been, wherever truth has greatly extended
her conquests over the human mind, she has found in
controversy a powerful auxiliary. Hence we are of the
same mind upon your first proposition, that the Episcq^
pacy of Methodism is a legitimate subject for newspa¬
per discussion—especially with a magnaitimeus oppon¬
ent. The entire, system of Methodist doctrines and
principles, invites investigation; it shuns no scrutiny j
diScussidn, whether oral or written, but unfolds its wis-'
dom and its beauty. ■ As you do not controvert the thir¬
teen points in my communication, except as they bear
upon the new issue you make, and as you repudiate the
slanderous article, from the "Watchman," in all points
save that contained in your proposition, I have done
with ^the anonymous slanderer, and cheerfully accept
debate on your terms, and contend that " The Episco¬
pacy of Xethodism is not anti-Republican." To give
your entire communication a respectful notice, I will,
fifst, dispose of some thoughts in your piece not impor¬
tant to the controversy, and correct some mistakes into
which you have inadvertently fallen.
You have given us (dissertations upon the facts—that
great narqes do not excus«<or sanctify,errors—that ec
36
A DISCUSSION ON
clesiastical power has heen invoked by princes since
the days of Constantine, and that religions opinions,
whether true or false, are wonderfully potent in their
influence upon the human soul. These are certainly
truths ; and I will not presume to- dictate to you what
amount of elegant dissertation upon foreign topics you
may interweave into this debate. My duty is, to look
only to what bears upon the point in question. If our
Episcopal feature were, as you say, a transplant from a
foreign soil, it were no less worthy of acceptance on that
.account; for our Bible is a foreign importation. Moses,
Isaiah, Daniel, -Paul, and John, were Hebrews. I know of
no system of religion of American origin but Mormonism,
and I am sure you have no love for that, though it does
baptize by immersion, and denounce infant baptism.
Suffer me now to correct the mistakes adverted
to. You say "the Episcopal Church of England is
the type of the Episcopal feature of the Methodist
Church.". This is a very great error for a man of your
erudition. Your valuable time has been spent in more
important matters, perhaps-, than the study of Church
government, or you would not have ■ made so great a.
mistake. The standard writers of both Churches will
tell you there is an essential difference between the two
systems. We hold that the Bible makes but two orders
in the ministry—they contend, that without a third erder
a Church eannot exist. " Powell, on Apostolic Succes¬
sion," a work which our young ministers are requii^d
to .study, will give you the particulars. The next mis¬
take I will point out, is of great importance to the ques¬
tion before us. You say, "if private members pronounce
the solemn act of exclusion against a member, it is sub-
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
31
ject to appeal, .and may be reversed by a bishop, and
the word of a bishop is the end of all strife." Now, this
mistake of yours upon this very important point, is pure
fiction, wholly groundless. Our whole body of bishops
cannot even so much as vote, whether or not the least
of our members shall be excluded from ot reinstated in
our membership. With the slight acquaintance you have
with our system, you might easily have believed us anti-
Republican, or anything else. A better knowledge of
our excellent government will increase your esteem for
it. Your onslaught upon our Episcopacy, in ignorance
of the first principles of our system, -demands that I
should call your attention to the proverb—" He that
answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and
shame unto him." • '
You think our u Episcopacy deprives our members of
the right of choosing their pastors—a right dear to the
Lord's freemen." Are you: aware that the Wesley an
Methodist Church in England—our much loved mother
Church—has no bishops, and yet appoint their ministers
upon the itinerant plan, just as we do ? And moreover,
our Protestant Methodist brethren in our land, have no
bishops, and havp lay delegations to the fullest possible
extent, and they also appoint ministers to their charges
upon the itinerant plan. Your argument is a non
causa pro causa; you have ascribed that to Episcopacy,
which is essential to, and inseparable from itinerancy,
whether with or without lay delegation and Episcopacy
—that is, the principle of sepding several ministers in
succession to the same charge. This itinerancy you
cannot think anti-Republican, for all branches of Me¬
thodism believe it to be the best mode of spreading the
4
88
A DISCUSSION ON
Gospel. It is in imitation of Apostolic itinerancy. Paul
preached from Jerusalem, round about to Illyricum—it
secures an efficient ministry, not only for the rich cities,
but for the sickly savannas, mountain wilds, and bleak
places of the earth—it is after the analogy of nature, in
propelling the rich blood, laden with nourishment, to
the extremities of the human system—it satisfies the
thirst for novelty, inlaid in the very structure of the
mind, as a basis for education—and as God has given
to one " the word of wisdom, to another the word of
knowledge, to another faith," &c., as he has sent out
men of divers talents and excellencies, to suit the di¬
verse peculiarities of men ; the appointment of these
men successively to the same Churches, will make their
varied gifts fully available to the edification of the en¬
tire membership of the Churches. Your own modesty
will admit, I think, that your permanent ministry in a
single Church, would be less profitable to that people
than a proper succession of labors of such men as your¬
self and Brothers Tichenor, and DeVotie. And I know
-that the high appreciation of your character abroad,
Creates a strong probability, that if yon were sent upon
an itinerant plan, say to Montgomery and Marion, your
labors would be more richly blessed. Thus, both min¬
isters and members would be blessed by the operation
of this Scriptural plan, and many secret griefs and mor¬
tifications, such as are described in " the Shady Side,"
would be escaped.
In this excellent plan of itinerancy, lies the philoso¬
phy of our whole system—it is the key-stone of the arch
-—take it away aild many parts of our system are super¬
fluous". We would then have no need for our annual
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
39
examinations of character, and for the reception of min¬
isters into the travelling connection, and? much else ap¬
pertaining Jo the business of an Annual Conference
would cease to he. And strange as it may seem to you,
in all the business left to an Annual Conference, were
the itinerancy abolished—such as attention to Mission¬
ary and Sunday Schools, and Tract Societies and Col¬
leges, in all these, we have lay management, and lay
delegation. So that if lay delegation extends not to
the control of this distribution of ministers, and to the
enactment of laws regulating this distribution, it is be-,
cause we believe too strongly in the Republican prin¬
ciple, that laws should be made by those only who are
subject to them, and not.by those on whom they cannot
operate. ' Moreover, in the very constituting of this iti¬
nerancy, the representative principle is fully admitted ^
for all itinerants are made *such by two distinct acts of
the private membership. First, by granting a license
to preach, and secondly, by recommending the preacher
for admittance into the travelling connection, without
which, there is no admission. This procedure is anala-
,gous to a bill, originating in the House of Representa¬
tives, and sent to the Senate before it becomes law. If
these itinerants, thus constituted, then go on and ap¬
point other officers for life, it is analagous to the .ap¬
pointments fot life by the President; Heads of depart¬
ments, and Senate, of Judges, and naval and military
officers.
Another item of our economy which you do not under¬
stand is this; you know our GeneralConfei-ence cannot do
away Episcopacy, but you do not know they can almost
completely divest the bishops of the appointing power
40
A DISCUSSION ON
whenever they see proper. It was once voted so to
change it, when hishop Sonle was elected, tut he refus¬
ed to accept the office, unless they reconsidered the mat¬
ter and left it as it was ; hence, he was not made bishop
until four years afterwards. These explanations make
the task of showing that we are not anti-Republican,
easy. Now, there are four points in which every form
of -civil government should be unlike Church govern¬
ment; but I shall contrast the latter with Republican¬
ism only. In a Republic, the people frame their funda¬
mental laws; but in a Church government, they are
framed by the Great Head of the Church for her; second¬
ly, in a Republic, the people either directly or indirectly,
choose their officers; but in a Church government, God
must first, by His Spirit, call her officers—the ministry
—and it is allowed to the Church, in order to guard
against imposture, only to acknowledge that call; and
then it cannot revoke their powers while their lives are
blameless ; thirdly, even aliens dwelling in a Republic,
must be subject to its laws ; but aliens to the common¬
wealth of Israel, may or may not place themselves un¬
der any Church government; and, in .the last place, a
Republic inflicts civil pains and penalties, such as death,
upon offenders ; but Church governments inflict no civil
pains or penalties whatever. A Church, scripturally
organized, must, therefore, blend in its government the
■theocratic element, for Christ is King; the ecclesiastic,
for he hath made such " overseers to feed the Church of
God;" and the Democratic, element, for by their fruits
ye shall know them — who are Christ's appointees.
Hence, the analogy between the government of a
Church, and tha^ of a Republic, must necessarily be
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
U
very slender. Nevertheless, within the limitations spe¬
cified, the Methodist Church government approximates
as nearly the model of our federal government as any
in the- land.
If you say Methodist Episcopacy is anti-Republican,
because it possesses legislative, executive^ and judicial
powers, we .answer, it is another of your'grand mistakes
---it possesses no such powers. Our bishops have no
legislative powers whatever, or anywhere. I have al¬
ready informed you, they have not so much-as a vote in
any of our Church councils—they cannot participate in
the trial of a member hence, they have no executive au¬
thority in any one of our thousands of Churches—they
have neither legislative nor executive authority in our
General Conferences—they cannot vote in the trial of
any of our ministers ; in this respect, they have no exe¬
cutive authority in our Annual Conferences, and are
cut off from participation in its legislation also ; and
the small portion of judicial and executive -authority
they are allowed there, is held under strict respon¬
sibility to the Eldership over ,which they exercise
this authority j and even their appointing power may be
changed by a single vote of the General Conference.
Hence, the prettily written fancy sketch of the youthful
Bascom, is pointless in its assault upon our Episeopacy ;
it was dissipated by the clearer wisdom of his man¬
hood ; it Was applicable, even to-civil government, only
turn grano snlis.
The indulgence granted to the childish dream of a
gifted youth, in his retention among us, is a good illus¬
tration of our freedom of speech ; and a sufficient reply
to the charge, that ministers were excluded from our
42
A DISCUSSION ON
Church, only for holding the very same sentiments. And
now, dear sir, as I have corrected your mistaken views
of our system, I ask you, solemnly, whether1 you think
it possible that our Episcopacy, composed of men called
of the Holy Ghost, promoted to the itinerancy by two
distinct acts of the membership, with specified restric¬
tions upon their authority, and within the limitations
which distinguish Church from civil authority, can be
anti-Republican ?! I 1 If you can reiterate the charge,
I must say I think your oonvicfion hopeless, and your
case will then be an instance of a most excellent judg¬
ment, overpowered by a stronger prejudice. It will re¬
mind me of an ancient orator, who, when a tumult arose
among the people for want of bread, and he failed to
quiet them with the assurance that violence could not
create food, remarked, the cause of his failure was, the
belly had no ears. If I have failed to satisfy you that
We are very^ good Republicans, it will be because preju¬
dice is very deaf, and can neither understand facts nor
logic. But I hope better things of you.
From the confident manner in which you brandished
Webster, in your attack upon Episcopacy, I must remove
the sinall difficulty which his definition has thrown in the
way of your conviction. The word Episcopal may be
used in either the Puseyistic, or Romanist, or Bible
sense ; we use it in the latter, and Paul is a better de-
finer of the word than Webster. In Acts xx. and xxviii.,
it is said, "The Holy Ghost hath made you overseers-to
feed the Church." Now, the word rendered overseers, is
the very word in question; it is Episcopous in the Greek,
the accusative plural of Episcopos, and may be translat¬
ed either overseers or bishops, at pleasure. Did Paul
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
43
then know that a "schoolboy could see in five minutes"
that Episcopal, the very word he used, meant something
despotic, and in antagonism with Republican institu¬
tions ? A word more on this subject. Paul said, the
Holy Ghost (not the people, takenotice,) hath made you
overseers to feed the flock of God. We should guard,
therefore, against the danger of pressing Republicanism
into an usurpation of the office of the Holy Ghost.
I have in my hand a curious little book, containing'a
Confession, of Faith, and a summary of Church Discip¬
line—a Baptist Discipline. It was published for the
Charleston Baptist Association, in 1813. The Articles
of Faith were first adopted by a hundred baptized con¬
gregations in England and Wales, in 1689, and there¬
after by the Philadelphia and Charleston Baptist Asso¬
ciations. I find many excellencies in it, and some things
which might be improved. It is not anti-Republican,
for nothing can be anti-Republican in Church govern¬
ment, except it distinctly opposes civil laws ; but the
Church government It describes, is very much unlike
the model of Our federal government. On page 6, of the
Discipline, it reads, " each distinct Church may exercise
every act of discipline, without being subject to the
cognizance of any other Church, Presbytery, Synod, or
Council whatever."
On page -58,. of the volume, it says that, " messengers,
of the Churches assembled, are not entrusted with any
Church power properly so called, or with any jurisdic¬
tion over the Churches themselves, to exercise any cen¬
sures, .either over any Churches or persons." And on
page 28, " The Baptist Association arrogates no higher
title than that of q,n advisory council—it is by no means
u
A DISCUSSION. ON
to be deemed a superior judicature—it presumes not to
impose its sentiments upon its constituents under pain
of excommunication." Now, -if our Federal Government
were formed on this model, and our Federal Congress
were made a mere advisory council, without even the
power of uttering censures, much less of making
laws, then our government would be a farce; and our
executive and judiciary would be destroyed. In truth,
we would have no government at all. Our State Go¬
vernment, if formed after this beautiful model, would in
like manner be farcical, without a Supreme Court or an
Executive, and our country would present the spectacle
of an immense number of broken neighborhoods, having
severally the supreme power in their hands, and per¬
fectly denationalized. Verily, this is rather Red-Repub¬
licanism, I
It is true, your Associations can declare non-fellow¬
ship with any Church—that is to say, you can virtually
turn out a whole Church, for non-fellowship amounts to
this : if they exercise the Christian liberty, dear to the
Lord's freemen, of partaking of the Holy Communion
with their orthodox brethren—and yet your Association
" cannot censure either Churches or persons." It is not
my business to reconcile these contradictions. This
view of your Church government, prepares me to un¬
derstand the remark, not of an enemy, but of a leading
man in your Church, the editor of the Baptist Recorder
and Register, New York. I quote from the last S. C.
Advocate. He says, " We (Baptists) present ourselves
to the world, a body rent by multiform divisions, animat¬
ed by anything bufthe Spirit of Christ, and illustrating
anything but the theory of regenerated Churches." This
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
45
is a sad picture—I would it were better. I find on page
15 of the Discipline, another rather un-Re'publican fea¬
ture in your economy. " To dismiss a member to the
world at large ought never to be done any other way
than by excommunication;" and on page 23, " As con¬
sent is necessary to a person's coming into the Church,
so none can go out of it without its consent." Hence,
if a Baptist becomes a Presbyterian, or a Methodist,
he is invariably expelled. This is Republicanism with
a yengeance ! Does it not look like forcing your mem¬
bers to remain Baptists ? I pass by the fact, page 6,
that female members are excluded from all share of rule
in your Church.
In conclusion, I admit all that you affirm of Robert
Hall's disapproval of the war with the American Colonies,
though he was a good subject of the "English Monarchy.
I reverence the man for his genius, and for his piety,
and for his abhorrence of your practice of close com¬
munion, concerning which he says, page 221, vol. 2,-
" With mingled surprise and indignation they behold us
(Baptists) making pretensions which no other denomin¬
ation of Protestants assumes ; placing ourselves in an
attitude of hostility to the whole Christian world."
Again : " There is nothing in the Churqh of Rome that
has excited more indignation and disgust than this very
pretension." Lastly, allow me say, the noble spirits
among you who attend to the legitimate functions of
the ministry, preaching Christ, and him crucified, will
do good, whether the deficiencies of your government
be few or many. May God speed their holy labors.
Fraternally yours, &q.
May 24th, 1855. E. J. HAMILL.
A DISCUSSION ON
REPLY TO LETTER II.
The .zeal and spirit of Mr. Hamill commended ; Precise question at
issue ; Foreign topics; Episcopacy a transplant from Europe ;
Analogy between the Church of England and the Methodist Epis¬
copal Church ; Singular way of proving two orders in the Me¬
thodist ministry; Bishops Soule and Gapers ; Mistake corrected ;
The right of appeal; The part Mr. Wesley and his first preachers
took in our Revolutionary War ; Not probable that they would
impart the element of Republicanism to a religious structure ;
James O'Kelly, William M'Kendree, Rice Haggard, and others;
An effort to reform the system in 1824 and 1828 ; Insulting an¬
swer of the General Conference to sundry memorials ; Exclusion
* and suspension of the reformers ; Moral heroism of " fifty fe¬
males " ; Acts xx. 28 ; No connection between Bible and Methodist
Episcopacy Sophistry in the use of the term " Puseyistic";
Itinerant plan ; Episcopacy defined ; The " Democratic Element";
Baptist anarchy ; n Close communion''; Specimen of logic ; An¬
other "fancy sketch" from the "yputhful Bascom " ; Courtesy
asked.
" But be yo hot called Rabbi; for one is your Master, even Christ; and all t«
are Brejhren."—Jesus Christ.
We admire tlie zeal of Brother Hamill, in defending
Methodist Episcopacy-—a zeal truly worthy of the best
of causes. Perhaps his discretion may not he so highly
commended, even by many members of his own corm
munion. Be this, however, as it may, it is evident that
he clings to the Episcopal feature of his Church with
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
41
unyielding tenacity • and that if it is ever changed, no
part of the glory or shame of such a revolution will ever
be his heritage. We" repeat, the fervent zeal of our
good brother excites our admiration—and we may add
that the spirit in which he writes is worthy of all praise.
If Episcopal Methodism cannot be shown to be Bepub-
lican and Democratic, it will not be for the want of
either zeal or ability. We presume Brother Hamill is
as competent to discuss this subject as any member -of
the Alabama Conference. And if he fails in this de¬
fence, it is fair to conclude that it will be because the
polity of that Church cannot be defended before am Ame¬
rican constituency.
The precise question at issue between Brother Hamill
and our self is this—Is Methodist Episcopacy anti-Democratic
and anti-Bepullitanl We affirm, he denies. He will
not consider it strange, therefore, if we rule out every¬
thing which does not bear upon the main question.
And here we must correct an impression upon Brother
Hamill's mind, in regard to his "thirteen points." He
seems to think that, because we did not answer them
seriatim, they are unanswerable. We supposed that
in so far as these points involved the main issue in
the article from the " Western Watchman," to wit: That
Methodist Episcopacy is anti-American—we had ans¬
wered them to all intents and purposes. So far as that
article related to a proscription of Methodists politically
for their religious sentiments, we did, and we do now,'
utterly repudiate it. We Jight Episcopacy with different
weapons. But so far as that article discussed the polity
of the Methodist Church as an element in the formation
of character; religious or political, we did regard it ap
48
A DISCUSSION ON
falling within the legitimate range of discussion, and as
guch'it was transferred to our columns. Our brother
sadly mistakes us if he supposes that we had "repudi¬
ated the slanderous article/7 If we had regarded it as
" slanderous,77 it certainly would not have been pub¬
lished. But enough of this.
' We are gratified that Brother Hamill concedes that
the Episcopal feature of the Methodist Church is a pro¬
per subject for newspaper discussion. While, however,
•he admits "that ecclesiastical power has been invoked
by princes since the days of Constantine—and that re¬
ligious opinions, whether true or false, are wonderfully
potent in their influence upon the human soul,77 he pro¬
nounces them "foreign topics .... interwoven into this
debate.77 This to us is not surprising. Wonderfully po¬
tent in their influence upon the human soul, and yet for¬
eign in a discussion, in which this very power is the sub¬
ject of debate. That is ,to say, the most important ele¬
ment of power which has ever been brought to bear upon
the human mind, for weal or woe, in moulding its habits,
prejudices, and principles, is totally foreign in a contro¬
versy, in which its effects are the very point contested !!
Our brother has showed his sagacity in excepting to the
introduction of such truths in this discussion. But
whether these are "foreign topics,77 will appear in the
course of these remarks.
We took occasion to remark in our first article, that
Episcopacy was a transplant from a foreign soil. Bro.
Hamill responds, "our Bible is a foreign transportation.77
True ; and if the question were, whether Episcopacy
is of Divine institution, his illustration would be in
point. But we submit that he has no right to make
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
49
such an assumption for Episcopacy. Christianity is
one thing—Episcopacy is quite a different thing. The
question we are debating is not, whether Christianity
or the Bible is anti-Republican—but whether Episco¬
pacy, as being a vital element in the structure of Me¬
thodism, a transplant from the despotic powers of Eu¬
rope, and which was foisted upon Christianity by that
licentious tyrant, Henry VIII., is in harmony with Ame¬
rican Democracy:—whether a principle, which despots
regard as essential to the stability of their thrones* in
maintaining their power to rule the minds and con¬
sciences of their subjects, is a safe principle to be incor¬
porated into the organic laws of " the largest denomina¬
tion of Christians," in a Republican government.
Again : To the remark that " the Episcopal Church
of England Is the type of the Episcopal feature of the
Methodist Church," Brother Hamill replies, " This is a
very great error for a man of your erudition." Let us
see. In the Episcopal Church of England, all the powers
of government, legislative, executive, and judicial, are
in the hands of the clergy ; and so it is in the Methodist
Episcopal Church. In the Church of England; the power
of ordination is vested supremely in the hands of the
bishops; so it is in the Methodist Episcopal Church.
In the English Establishment, the power, to supply
the Churches with pastors is vested in. Episcopal
hands; so it is in the Methodist Episcopal Church.
In the ecclesiastical councils of the English Church,
no layman's voice is ever heard; and in the simi¬
lar councils cf the Methodist Episcopal Church, the
principle of representation, on the part of the laity, is
equally excluded. In the ecclesiastical polity of Eng-
5
50
A DISCUSSION ON
land, the revenues of the Church, which proceed from
the people, pass "beyond their constitutional control into
the hands of its rulers ; and the same is true of the po¬
lity of the Methodist Episcopal Church, if the late Bishop
Bascom is to be believed. T© become a member of the
Church pf England, a man resigns his right of.suffrage;
and no less is it true of him who attaches himself to the
Methodist Episcopal Church. And so- we might run this'
parallel to almost any extent. The truth is, entire
chapters and- sections of the ritual of the Methodist
Episcopal Church are transferred, with very slight mo-,
difi'cation, from the Book of Common Prayer. The reader
has but to compare the Methodist Discipline w'ith the
Book of Common Prayer, and he will be no little surpris¬
ed at the likeness between the mother and thd daughter.
But, says Brother Hamill, "We (Methodists) hold that
the Bible makes but two orders in the ministry," by
which he means, we suppose, deacons and bishops, or
elders, using these latter terms interchangeably. If so,
then every elder is a bishop 1 Why the ceremonies of or¬
dination as laid down in the Discipline? Why re-ordain
a man to a bishoprick, when he has already been ordained
to that office, since bishop and elder are the same ? Our
brother has a singular way of proving this. He alleges
that because Mr. Hamline voluntarily vacated his po¬
sition as bishop, and went back into the rank of elders,
that therefore bishops and elders are thu same I By
parity of reasoning, because. Charles Y. resigned his
crqwn in his old age, and went into voluntary seclu¬
sion, therefore a German king is nothing more nor
less than a German citizen ! But what say the bishops
of the Methodist Episcopal Church on this subject T We'
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
51
quote first from the senior "bishop, Dr. Soule : " I say if
this doctrine be a correct one, (that bishops are mere
officers of the General Conference,) I have heard for the
first time, either on the floor of this Conference*, in an
Annual Conference, or through the whole of the private
membership of the Church, this doctrine* advanced : this
is the first time I have heard it."—Report of the Delates
in the Gen. Con., 1844, page 169.
The late Bishop Capers-spoke as follows on the same
point:—"It has been urged that a bishop" is only an
officer of the General Conference, and that his election
and not his consecration gives him his authorship as a
bishop. If a bishop is n6 more than an officer of the
General Conference, wherefore is he consecrated 1 A bishop
an officer of the General Conference only! And is'it in
such a capacity that he ordains and stations the preachr
ers of the Annual Conferences ? An officer of the Ge¬
neral Conference only ! Then were it untrue and blas¬
phemous to invest him with the office-, with these holy
words of the consecration service : K Receive the Holy
Ghost for the office and work of a bishop in the Church
of God, now committed to thee by the imposition of our
hands, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of
the Holy Ghost.'"—Debates, &c., page 181.
And here we leave Brother Hamill and the bishops to
settle this point, mooted for the first time in 1844,
merely remarking that, as imperfect as our knowledge
of " Church government" may be, we have-been led to
"make this great mistake" by the bishops of his own
Church. So much, then, for this " mistake."
The next "very important point" in which our bro¬
ther says we arc mistaken, is, that exclusion on the part
52
A DISCUSSION ON
of the Church is subject to appeal, and may be reversed
by a bishop, &c, In this we are partly mistaken, and
intended to make the correction before we read Brother
Hamill's communication. We had not observed the
distinction whiph the discipline makes between the me¬
thod of procedure in the case of a private member and
that of a preacher. The preacher has the right of ap¬
peal to an Annual Conference, the private member to a
Quarterly Conference. But the principle we were dis¬
cussing remains the same, to wit: that the action of
a particular Church, in excluding one of its members, is
not a finality—that' another power is recognized by Me¬
thodism, higher than the Church. And this power is
called by them Episcopacy. This was the main point we
we were discussing ; and this, we suppose, will not be
pronounced a mistake. And what is true of the final
exclusion of members from the Church, is equally true
of their reception. The Church, as such, can guard
neither the door of ingress nor egress. Who ever heard
of a Methodist minister consulting a Church as to who
should become a member of it 1
But it is time for us to take up the main subject of
this discussion. Brother Hamill heads his article,
" Methodist Episcopacy not anti-Republican." Then it
must be Republican. Let us see how far the facts in
its history will sustain this assumption. We are not
responsible for these facts ; we find them recorded up¬
on the impartial page of history, and we use them with
no unkind feeling to our Methodist brethren. To begin,
then, at the beginning : In 1115, Mr. Wesley published
a communication in Lloyd's Evening Post, of which the
following is an extract:
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
53
"■Now, there is no possible way to put out this flame,
[our Revolutionary struggle,] or hinder its rising high¬
er and higher, but to show that the Americans are not
used either cruelly or unjustly; that they are not injured
at all, seeing they are not contending for liberty; (this
they had even in its ful-l extent, both civil and re¬
ligious,) neither for any legal -privileges; for they enjoy
all their charters grant. But what they contend for is,
the illegal privilege of being exempt from Parliamentary
taxation—a privilege this which no charter ever gave
to any American Colony yet—which no charter can give,
unless it be confirmed both by King, Lords, and Com¬
mons ; which, in fact, our Colonies never had ; which
they never claimed till the present reign. This being
the real state of the question, without any coloring or
aggravation, what impartial man can either blame the
King or commend the Americans ? With this view, to
quench the fire by laying the blame where it was due,
the 'Calm Address7 was written.
I am, sir, your humble servant,
JOHN WESLEY.77
About the same time, Mr. Wesley sent out six mis¬
sionaries to the Colonies, and, as might have been ex¬
pected, these missionaries reflected his political views.
They were all Englishmen. Hence it is said of them,
that "they insulted the Americans, calling them rebels,
and spoke contemptuously of that cause which the peo¬
ple had sworn to support And what was the re¬
sult 1 ... . Hatred and opposition to them wherever
they went; until at last, five out of the six'fled for their
lives, and the sixth, Mr: Asbury, was obliged to lie con¬
cealed in Mr. White's, in the State of Delaware.—Let¬
ters on Methodist Episcopacy, by A. McCaine, page 40.
54
A DISCUSSION ON
Such were some of the fathers of Methodism. To
what extent they were capable of imparting' the element
of Republicanism to the structure they Were about to
rear, is left to the good sense of the reader. We have
some other interesting facts m this connection, and in
regard to the other fathers of this system, to which
we may hereafter recur. We beg to be understood
as not impeaching the patriotism of the member¬
ship of the Methodist Episcopal Church. We believe
them to be as sincere Democrats and Republicans—as
sincere lovers of their country, as any community of
Christians in the United States. We only wish they
were in religion what they are in politics. And since
religion, whether properly or improperly conceived, is
stronger than politics, and has in its history subverted
all forms of government, it is reasonable to infer, that a
time may eome again when the less shall give way to
the greater. And the only provision we can make
against such an emergency, is, so to construct our eccle¬
siastical organizations, as to render such a contingency
impossible. This, we believe, our Methodist brethren
ought to do in their Church polity.
But let us see to what extent the subsequent history
of-Methodist Episcopacy sustains the declaration of
Brother Hamill—"Methodist Episcopacy not anti-Repub¬
lican." We shall only bring out two facts at present,
that the reader may see to what extent the polity of
"the largest denomination of Christians" in this country,
harmonizes with our Democratic Republican form of
government.
In the year 1192, one year after the death of Mr. Wes¬
ley, the Rev. James O'Kelly, alarmed at 'the "exorbi-
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
55
tant powers of,the bishops " offered the following reso¬
lution at a General Conference :
" Resolved, That after the bishop appoints the preach¬
ers, at Conference, to their several circuits, if any one
think himself injured by the appointment,, he shall have
the right.to appeal to the Conference, and state his ob¬
jections ; and if the Conference approve his objections,
the bishop shall appoint him to another circuit."
This resolution, after being discussed for three days,
was negatived by a large majority ; whereupon the
Rev. James O'Kelly, William McKendree, (afterwards
bishop,) Rice Haggard, and others, withdrew from* the
connection. So sedulously have they guarded that ir-
fevocable decree, viz : Thou shalt not change or alter
any part or rule of our government, so as to do away
Episcopacy, &c. v Even the right of appeal from the de¬
cision of a bishop, or, as Brother Hamill would fain
make us believe, the "permanent moderator" of the
Conference is denied. This is moderating with a ven¬
geance ! We leave to our brother the pleasing task of
exhibiting the peculiar Republican features of this as¬
pect of tlic cherished dogma of his Church.
In the year 1824, a movement was commenced in the
Methodist Episcopal Church, among many of the minis¬
ters and laymen, having reference to such modification
of the organic law of that Church, as would secure to
the laity an equal representation with the ministry, in
their legislative councils. Union Societies were formed
in perhaps every State in the confederacy, for the pur¬
pose of discussing this question and petitioning the
next General Conference, which was to meet in 1828,
to incorporate this principle of representation- into their
56
A DISCUSSION ON
constitution. Had the membership of the Methodist
Episcopal Church the right to form these societies, dis¬
cuss this question, and petition the General Conference ?
0 yes, says Brother Hamill, "The freest expression of
sentiment is indulged without blame." T)nly let " no
man promulge Unitarianism or Universalism," or such
like heresies, and the most perfect freedom of speech
may be enjoyed. " Discussion, whether oral or written,
but unfolds its wisdom and its beauty." Well, we pro¬
pose "unfolding" one of these "beauties" for the admir¬
ation of the reader. - Nothing strikes us like a fact. A
living, acting, moving "beauty" is worth ten thousand
creations of fancy.
' The original promoters of this movement recommend¬
ed the formation of these Union Societies throughout
the United States, and resolved to publish a periodical
pamphlet, one of which we have before us, entitled,
" The Mutual Rights of the Ministers and Members of
the Methodist Episcopal.Church," for the purpose of
giving the Methodist community a suitable opportunity
to enter upon a calm and dispassionate discussion of
the subjects in dispute." A " calm and dispassionate"
inquiry as to whether private members and local preach¬
ers had any rights in the Church of Christ, and if so,
what those rights were, it might be supposed would
have been tolerated with impunity in a Church so pe¬
culiarly Republican in its organization, as we would be
made to believe Methodism to be. But how was this
movement treated? "In Tennessee, fourteen official
members were expelled for attempting to form a Union
Society !" " In North Carolina, several members of the
Granville Union Society were expelled for being mem-
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
5*
hers thereof." "In the fall of. 1821, eleven ministers
were suspended, and finally expelled from the Methodist
Episcopal Church in this city (Baltimore,) and twenty-
two laymen, for being members of the Union Society,
and supporters of the mutual rights." Some "fifty fe¬
male friends of these suspended and expelled brethre'n
immediately withdrew from the Church, after addressing
a letter to the preacher in charge," of which the follow¬
ing is an extract:—" To find our dear companions, fa¬
thers, brothers, children, and friends, treated as crimin¬
als and enemies, persecuted, suspended, and expelled,
denounced as backsliders and disturbers of the peace,
and ourselves treated coldly and distantly by our former
friends, and by our pastors, and all for a mere, difference
of opinion about Church government, is more than we feel
bound in Christian charity longer to endure ; and there¬
fore we feel it our duty, in the fear of God, to withdraw
from the Church." Noble women 1 Your names deserve
to be recorded upon the same page of history with those
who signed our Declaration of Independence ! The
Protestant Methodist Church will not have discharged
•its duty to po'sterity if it fail to preserve your names
among its richest-memories !
But in the Conference of 1824, several memorials were
presented, " praying that the government of the Church
might be made representative, and more in accordance with
the mutual rights of the ministers and people." And how
were these memorials treated—memorials which sought
to incorporate into the Methodist economy the vital ele¬
ment of our happy civil institutions ? The Conference
replied in a circular of some length, in which this re-
58
A DISCUSSION ON
markable passage occurs :—" Pardon us if we know no
such rights, if we comprehend ho such privileges !" we
could use as many exclamation points liere as Brother
Hamill, but we are fearful the stock would become ex¬
hausted. And moreover, we prefer simply to state
facts, and let the reader supply as many as he chooses.
We are, therefore, prepared to answer Brother Haihill's
question—" I ask you solemnly, whether you think it
possible that our Episcopacy, composed of men called
of the Holy Ghost, promoted to the itinerancy by two
distinct acts of the membership, with the specified re¬
strictions upon their authority, and within the limita¬
tions which distinguish Church from civil authority, can
be anti-Republican ?" The odium of an obtuseness,
whether mental or moral, which cannot see either De¬
mocracy or Republicanism in a system, whose founders
threw the weight of their religious character against
our revolutionary struggle—whose very father declared,
" we are no Republicans, and never intend to be,"^-the
constituted authorities of which, in answer to meme-
rials asking for representation on the part of the private
members, answer such memorials in the very vernacular
of the most absolute despotisms, " pardon us if we know
no such rights, if we comprehend no such privileges,"—
from the communion of which, ministers and laymen are
suspended and expelled for discussing and seeking to
secure their mutual rights to representation in its law¬
making power—we say, the odium of an obtuseness
which cannot see either "the wisdom or beauty," or the
Democracy and Republicanism of such a structure, we
must be content to bear. Our "judgment" may be
METHODIST EPISCDPACY.
59.
" overpowered by a strange prejudice." Perhaps the
reader will be reminded of the well known couplet ef
Hudibras :
"KeeD optics, sir, it takes, I ween,
To see tvhat is not to be seen."
"Pardon us if we know no such rights, if we comprehend
no such privileges!" And this language was uttered in,
the "monumental city" of this Uhion, and in sight of
the venerable statue of Washing-ton ! It was uttered
in response to an humble and respectful petition from
a constituency asking for a representation in the legisla¬
tive councils of a body claiming and exercising the right
of taxation, • the very principle asked for by our fore¬
fathers, and the denial of which on the part of the Bri¬
tish Government, provoked our Revolutionary war !
And it was-uttered by the constituted authorities of an
ecclesiastical hierarchy for which a seriotis claim is en¬
tered, that it is "not anti-Republican"—that it possesses
" the Democratic elementIs it uncharitable to say that
such a reply to such a petition, is enough to flush the
cheek of every American citizen with indignation ?
But Bro. Hamill excepts „to our resort to Webster for
a definition of terms, by entering what the lawyers call
a special plea. He seeks to identify Methodist and
Bible Episcopacy. Hear him : "The worcf Episcopal
may -be used in either the Puseyistic, Romanist,, or
Bible sense ; we use it in the latter—and Paul is a bet¬
ter definer of the word than Webster. In Acts xx. 28,
it is said*, 'The Holy Ghost hath made you overseers to
feed the Church.'" We must again notify our brother,
60
A DISCUSSION ON
that it is Methodist Episcopacy, and not Bible "Episco¬
pacy that we are discussing. We believe that if Paul
had more authority in the Methodist Episcopal Church
than he has, instead of seven bishops, there would be
just as many bishops as there are Churches in that con¬
nection. Take, for instance, his address to the Church
at Philippi : "Paul and Timotheus, the servants of
Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Jesus Christ which are
at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons." Here there
was a plurality of bishops in a single Church. We must
say, however, that our brother is quite unfortunate in
referring to this passage. The verse reads thus:
" Take heed, therefore, unto yourselves, and to all the
flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you over¬
seers, to feed the Church of God, which he hath pur¬
chased with his own blood." This is a part of Paul's
address to "the Elders of the Church at Ephesus." The
word "overseers" in the original, as Brother Hamill
shows, is Episcopous, *ac. pi. of Eplscopos, the word
usually translated bishop in our version. Substituting
this term, then, for the one in use, the passage would
read, " over which the Holy Ghost hath made you bishops."
Then there was a plurality of bishops in the Church at
Ephesus, as well as at Philippi. Were these bishops
pastors ? Of this there can be no doubt. In the polity
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, does the Holy Ghost
or the bishop appoint the overseers ?—or are bishop and
Holy Ghost identical terms ? And when so appointed,
is it lawful to call them bishops, as the original term
imports, or "circuit riders and 'elders?" Or if it is
claimed that the word overseers or bishops in this passage
Paul refers to an order of the clergy so designated in
METHODIST EPISCOPACY
61
the Methodist Episcopal Church, we ask, is there a Me¬
thodist bishop on this continent who has the .oversight
of a "floci." or " Church." We want no better evidence
than this passage affords, that Bible Episcopacy and
Methodist Episcopacy are the poles asunder.
But this by the way. We do not propose arguing
this question now, as it is a manifest changing of the
issue—a privilege which we cannot recognize in this
discussion.
But did the reader observe the care with which the
foregoing sentence was written ? " The word Episco¬
pal may be used in either the Puseyistic, Rolmanist, or
Bible sense," &c. In no other sense, Brother Hamill ?
We admire the dexterity with which you guard the re¬
putation of the mother. Why did you not use the word
English, or Protestant, instead of Puseyistic? Was
there a lurking suspicion upon your mind, that if Eng¬
lish Episcopacy were placed in the same* category with
that of Borne, Methodist Episcopacy might share the
same fate ? Pardon us if We regard this as the best
evidence you could furnish, that our position remains
impregnable, your argument to the contrary notwith¬
standing—that English Episcopacy is the type of Me¬
thodist Episcopacy.
As to the " itinerant plan" of -preaching the Gospel,
Brother Hamill admits that it has no vital connection
with Episcopacy, since it is pursued by the Wesleyan
Methodists of England, and by the Protestant Methodists
of this country. And he might have added, various
other denominations. Presbyterians, Congregational-
ists, Baptists, and many others, have adopted the plan,
wherever and whenever the exigencies demanded.. We
6
62
A DISCUSSION ON
protest, therefore, that Episcopacy is not entitled to the
credit of that which is common to all forms of Church
government ; and that any argument based upon such
an assumption, can prove no more for Episcopacy than
for Congregational or Presbyterial government.
We must set our brother right on another point. To
our remark that Methodist Episcopacy possesses legis¬
lative, executive, and judicial powers ; and that inas¬
much as the laity had no voice in either of these depart¬
ments of its government, it must necessarily be anti-
Republican, he replies, " It possesses no such powers ;
our bishops have no legislative powers whatever or
anywhere. . . . They have not so much as a vote in any
of our Church councils." Let us say once for all, that
in applying the term Episcopacy to the government of
the Methodist Church, we mean that it is a government of
the clergy, in contradistinction to, and independently of the.
people. This we suppose to be the idea represented by
Episcopacy in the "Discipline." Why should a bishop
care to vote, when he has the whole Conference at
command, and can " say to one come, and he cometh ;
and to another go, and he go'eth ?"—when he has but to
utter his authoritative voice, and every minister in the
Conference marches to his assigned field, without know¬
ing one moment before the command is uttered, what
his destination is ? As well might it be said, that be¬
cause the kings of England never had a vote in Parlia¬
ment, therefore the British Government is a pure Demo¬
cracy ! We are astonished that our brother never saw
the obvious fallacy of such an argument. But perhaps
it was the best apology for Episcopacy he could make.
"A Church scripturally organized," says Brother
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
Hamill, " mast therefore blend in its government the
theocratic element, for Christ is King ; the ecclesiastic,
for he hath made such ' overseers to feed the Church of
God ;' and the Democratic, for by their fruits ye shall know
them—who are Christ's appointees." Now, we do posi¬
tively aver, that we have looked at this sentence time
and again, and we cannot discover " the Democratic
element." And so anxious are we to find it, that we
hereby promise to give any man a copy of the South
Western Baptist for one year, who will point out the
" Democratic element" in this sentence. It reminds us
of a problem we heard in school-boy days,—" if the
kitchen be fifteen feet square, how far is it to the
spring?"
As we are not discussing the form of government pe¬
culiar to the Baptists, the reader will pardon us for per¬
mitting all that Brother Hamill says on that subject to
pass unnoticed for the present at least. That ha& no
sort of connection with this discussion. His very ob¬
jections to the Baptist form of Church government are
based upon the principle in his Church, which places it
in antagonism with American Democracy, to wit :v the
people are incompetent to govern themselves, and therefore ought
to be excluded from the legislative councils of his Church. It
may be proper for us to say, in answer to his philippic
against us for expelling members, who .leave us and
join other communions, that we do not believe the
same person can be a member of two Churches at the
same time ; and when such a case occurs, we simply
withdraw our Church jurisdiction and fellowship from
such person. We have no other way of disposing,of
64
A DISCUSSION ON
them. When the present question is disposed of, we
are ready to discuss that also.
But, to cap the climax, Brother Hamill brings in that
horrible practice among the Baptists of " closer com¬
munion !" and treats us to an extract or two, from Ro¬
bert Hall, on that subject. But what puzzles us is, to
find out what this has to do with the subject in debate.
Thrown into the form of an argument, how formidable
it becomes ! Here it is : In the opinion of Baptists, the
Scriptures teach, that sacramental communion ought to
be restricted to baptized believers ; therefore the Me¬
thodist Episcopal Church is a Democratic Republican,
government.
We close with another "fancy sketch" from "the
youthful Bascom." Whether it is " pointless in its' as¬
sault upon our Episcopacy," is left to the judgment of
the reader.
" Art. 11th. No power possesses so fatal a principle
of increase and accumulation in itself, as ecclesiastical
power. Its facilities for production and multiplication
are many £tnd fearful, and should be vigilantly guarded
against by all who consider the image of God as close¬
ly connected with the rights of man. And whenever
the growth and manifestation of this power, in any of
its innumerable forms and modes of operation, shall clear¬
ly amount to an invasion of Christian rights, the injur¬
ed and oppressed should resist the encroachment with
manly decision and unyielding remonstrance. In every
Church where the principle of representation is exclud¬
ed, in the affairs of its government, the right of private
judgment becomes a nullity, and faith and practice are
necessarily, to a great extent, the offsprings of prescrip¬
tion. The right of deciding what are the will and mind
of God, in matters of faith and discipline, by prescrip¬
tive interpretation, is conceded in the Scriptures to no
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
65
man or body of men, exclusively. Of course-, the right
of judgment belongs to all, equally and inalienably;
and when the ministry avail themselves of the indiffer¬
ence, inattention, or ignorance of the people brought
under their charge from time to time, to constitute
themselves their legislative masters and executive
guardians, they usurp the dominion of conscience, and
although never complained of, are de facto religious ty¬
rants, because they assume and exercise rights that do
not, and can not.in the nature of things belong to them.
It should not be overlooked, moreover, that when the
ministry are considered by the laity as the s«le judges
and depositories of faith and discipline, the people lose
the only powerful motive, the only direct incentive they
Can possibly have to inquire and decide for themselves,
in the infinitely momentous concerns of truth and duty.
Such a monopoly of power by the ministry, tends direct¬
ly to mental debasement, consequent indecision of cha¬
racter, insincerity, and misguided zeal."
We respectfully ask Brother Hamill, whether the same
courtesy we have extended to him can be extended to
us in some one of the organs of his denomination—
whether it would not be just and proper for this discus¬
sion to appear in the columns of some bne of the " Ad¬
vocates?" Since "discussion, whether oral or vmtten,
only serves to unfold its wisdom and its beauties," we
shall confidently expect this courtesy to be extended.
As a well-known political editor used] to say, nous
verons.
May 24th, 1855.
66
A DISCUSSION ON
LETTER III.
METHODISM LIElE ITS CREED—PEACE AND
GOOD WILL TO MAN.
Christian courtesy appreciated; A case of twisting; Precious charity
of Mr. Graves; Foreign topics again; Sixty American preachers;
Admirable logic; Robert Hall's opinion of "Wesley; Robert Hall
repels the charge of Republicanism from Baptists; Wesley's view
of the duty of American Methodists; George Washington's prayer
for the prosperity of Methodism; Children's teeth not set on edge;
Thomas Muncer's proclamation; John Matthias' and John Bocold's
Republic; Concession; Angels of the churches first among equals;
Paul's ordination; Bishop Capers' opinion; Human instrumental¬
ity designates the field of ministerial labor; Charles Y. not Ger¬
man Emperor by divine right; Corrections; Hon. & Rev. Baptist
Noel's description of the lay management in the English Church;
Retraction dehaanded; What would make the English monarchy
exceedingly Democratic,; Supposed one hundred Baptist itiner¬
ants; In the business of Baptist State and Southern Conventions
we have lay managemept; What rights and privileges we ignore;
O'Kelly's resolution; Cordial acknowledgment; The courtesy re¬
turned.
" Presumptuous are they, self-willed, they are not afraid tospeakevil of dignities."—
Petee.
Rev. Me. Henderson:
You honor me in imagining me as fully able to defend
Methodism as*any of my brethren; I thank you for your
high opinion of me; but I would rather you would as-
■METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 61
cribe my success to the fact that truth is powerful. My
zeal is certainly worthy of a better cause than the de¬
fence of my church from the aspersions cast upon our
Republicanism; but when a minister of so much repu¬
tation as yourself, endorses the charge; it becomes ne¬
cessary to show the untarnished beau-ty of our economy.
The*successful performance of this task will amply jus¬
tify my discretion. You welcomed me cordially to your
columns in your first communication. Do you now wish
"to rule out everything which-does not bear upon the
main question?" I demur to your self-constituted cen¬
sorship in this case. I do not question your right to
show, if you can, the irrelevancy of my arguments to
the point under discussion; but for a party in debate,
to claim the power to say in what respect his opponent
shall hot even be heard, is an unheard of assumption.
I shall not doncede this claim, even to the displacement
of a single word; nor does this demand speak flatter¬
ingly of your courage in the premises.
You do not now, it seems, repudiate anything in the
slanderous article which originated this discussion;
only in so far as it " relates to a political proscription
of Methodists." You then .endorse the following posi¬
tions of that article—Methodist Episcopacy is a foe to
human rights—it exerts a paralyzing influence over
* freedom of thought—it has impose^ articles of faith upon
the people without their consent—Methodists degrade
themselves by submission to, bishops, in regard to
Church property, more than Roman Catholics — our
bishops control our public moneys, and buildings—they
can control the suffrages of our members, and thus, hold
68
A DISCUSSION- ON
the balance of political power in their hands. Is it right
Brother Henderson, to be thus
" Twisting in, and twisting out,
Leaving tbe beholder still in doubt"
of what you. do allege against Methodism? I must
then, deliberately say to you, they are all, and each of
them, utterly false; for proof,.see my first article, which
you have barely deigned to notice.
I think it due the public to state, that I find a large
part of the article from the " Western Watchman," in
the Great Iron Wheel, a work written by a Baptist, the
Rev. Mr. Graves—a portion of the piece is without quo¬
tation marks. See pages 291, 292, 295, 296, 299, 806.
A few precious extracts will show the spirit of the au¬
thor. Mr. Graves charitably classes " ruling elders of
the Presbyterian Church, and Methodist Conferences,
with Pio Nono,*and styles them big and little popes,"
(page 45, Iron Wheel). "We see bishops and ruling
elders lording it over God's children;" (page 50.) "Any
Pedo-Baptist Society is a huge-clerical despotism itself;"
(page 50). On pages 254, &c., he calls " all Protestant
sects harlots and abominations of the earth," find the
communing together of Methodists and Presbyterians,
" a blasphemous farce, prostituting the holy emblems
to the propagation of»a falsehood." On page 265, he
says " Protestant ministers have usurped Christ's place,
and exercise his authority over his Church." You may
imagine my surprise'then, on discovering that the piece,
ascribed in the "Watchman," to some profound philo¬
sopher unconnected with any Church, was surely an ef-
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
69
fusion of the tender mercies of the lovely Mr. Graves,
whose charity is so strikingly displayed in the foregoing
extracts. What meant this concealment of the-author?
For charity of this description, however, I never gave
you credit, and therefore did not look for you to en¬
dorse the beautiful sayings of such a writer.
With regard to those foreign topics—the invoking tof
ecclesiastical power by princes—dhe potency of reli¬
gious opinions—that despots -regard Episcopacy as es¬
sential to their thrones ; what has this to do with
Methodism? Have princes invoked its aid? Do the
thrones of England, France, Austria, and Russia, owe
their stability to American Episcopal Methodism? Did
Nebuchadnezzar, Alexander the Great, Tiberius, the
Koman Emperor, and the Sultan of Turkey, all owe their
thrones to Christian Episcopacy, and that too, of Ameri¬
can Methodism? Did Henry VIII., that licentious tyrant,
foist Episcopacy upon American Methodism? It would
be bold reasoning to affirm all this.
But John Wesley, was a loyal subject of an English
king; therefore, our Methodist Episcopacy is anti-Re¬
publican! and Methodist Protestantism also! Five out
of six Methodist preachers who were Englishmen, fled,
and therefore, the sixty American Methodist preachers,
who in 1184,. some years afterwards, organized the
Methodist Episcopal Church, were anti-Republican also,
and the Church they organized is hostile to our institu¬
tions. Admirable logic! John Wesley was one of the
greatest, purest and most useful men, since the days of
the Apostles—a man of whom your great Robert Hall
says, " Whitfield and Wesley will be hailed by posterity
as the second Reformers of England." Howbeit, he was
TO
A DISCUSSION ON
no Statesman, and knowing only the aristocratic, and
despotic Republics of Greece, Rome, Genoa, Florence,
Venice, &e., he may be pardoned for having preferred a
limited monarchy, to what he deemed an experiment in
government, the glorious results of which no mortal
could have anticipated. Robert Hall himself, thus repels
the charge of Republicanism from all dissenters, Baptists and
others. " Dissenters are reproached with the appellation of
Republicans, but the truth of this charge has neither appeared
from facts, nor been supported by any reasonable evidence
(vol. 2, p. 82). Is it just to conclude from this, that
American Baptists are anti-Republican? I think not.
Hear now, how nobly at the close of the war in 1784,
Wesley speaks to Americans. " As our American
brethren are totally disentangled, both from the State
and from the English hierarchy, we dare not entangle
them again, either with the one, or the other; they are
now at full liberty^ simply to follow the Scriptures and
the primitive Church. And we judge it best that they
should stand fast in that liberty wherewith God has so
strangely set them free." Nobly spoken, John Wesley!
Is this a man hostile to our institutions, who says
God has made them free? .(Bangs' History M. E. Church,
voL 1st, p. 152).
There is another striking fact in the history of Ameri¬
can Methodism. They were the first to present a con¬
gratulatory address to General Washington on his ac¬
cession to the Presidency. The address and the answer
in a few days, says Bangs, (p. 281,) were inserted in the
public prints; and some of the ministers and members of
other Churches, appeared dissatisfied that the Method¬
ists should take the lead. " In that address they express
confidence that the wisdom and integrity of Washington
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
11
will preserve the civil and religious liberties transmit¬
ted to us by the providence of God and the glorious
revolution." And what does the. Great Father of our
country reply to them? Does he, while the facts of the
revolution were yet new, tell them they are anti-Repub-
lican? No, but he says, " I TAKE IN THE KIND¬
EST PART, THE PROMISE YOU MAKE OF PRE¬
SENTING YOUR PRAYERS AT THE THRONE OF
GRACE, FOR ME, AND THAT I LIKEWISE IM¬
PLORE THE DIVINE BENEDICTION ON YOUR¬
SELVES AND YOUR RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY.
GEORGE WASHINGTON." Verily, sir, the prayer of
that matchless patriot, offered for the divine benediction
upon the Methodist bishops, and the Methodist commu¬
nity, will be a shield to our patriotism, which the em¬
poisoned darts of malignity will never penetrate. *The
proof, that will establish the anti-Republicanism of our
Episcopacy, will also convict the immortal Washington,
as a traitor to Republicanism. But rob us of these glo¬
rious facts of -Methodism, and let it be granted for the
sake of argument, that John Wesley was opposed to
our free institutions;" would you hold us responsible for
it? Would you say " the fathers have eaten sour grapes
and set the children's teeth on edge?" Would it be just
to frame this anti-Republican bill of attainder against
us? ♦ No; your conscience responds it is not just. I
agree with you, and therefor^, will not charge upon you
the licentious madness of the German Baptists, or Ana-
Baptists, as they have been called. I will refer ta it,
however, thaf you may see how unjust it would be to
charge you with what you utterly detest.
In Orchard's Baptist History, one of your own publi-
T2
A DISCUSSION ON
cations, page <349, Thomas Muncer, of Mulhausen, Thu-
ringia, is pronounced one of the mdst eminent Baptists.
" Muncer," says Orchard, " stirred up the peasants
against the nobles and magistrates of Germany." And
D'Aubigne's History of the Reformation gives us the fol¬
lowing proclamation from him, vol. 3, page 258: "Arise
and fight the battle of the Lord. The time is come.
France, Germany, and Italy are up and doing. Forward,
Forward, Forward—Dran, Dran, Dran. Heed not the
cries of the ungodly. They will weep like children, but
be you pitiless. Dran, Dran, Dran—Fire burns—let
your swords be ever tinged with blood. Dran, Dran,
Dran." Signed, Muncer, God's servant against the un¬
godly.
" They maintained that among christians who have
the precepts of the gospel to direct, and the Spirit of
God to guide them, the office of magistrate is unneces¬
sary, and an encroachment on spiritual liberty—and that
every man may lawfully marry as many wives as he thinks
proper;" (Russell's Modern Europe, page 37*2, vol. 1).
After Muncer was put to death, John Matthias and John
Bocold, formed a singular kind of Republic, in Munster,
from .which Matthias wrote to his brethren in the low
countries, inviting them to assemble at Mount Sion
(Munster,) to set out in a body and reduce all nations
under their dominion. After Matthias was slain, John
Bocold was made king; he took fourteen wives, and
with the community over which he reigned, became a
fac-simile of Mormonism. I know you repudiate the li¬
centiousness, and tyranny, of these Baptists, who would
have carried fire and sword, like Mahommed, to the
ends of the earth, if they had not been overthrown.
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
13
Now, there wquld he as much logic and justice in charg¬
ing their crimes upon American Baptists, who abhor
them, as in charging Wesley's loyalty upon free Ame¬
rican Methodists.
I concede your claims to the character of a true
branch of the Church of Christ, as fully as if these facts
had never darkened the history of Baptists; but not be¬
cause your succession flowed through this corrupt chan¬
nel, but because you reverence the New Testament
Scriptures; though I wish you had more respect for
that religion of the Old Testament, which dictated the
glorious Psalms of David, and because the Spirit ofv the
Lord is often found in your assemblies.
You thought, as you brandished Webster so trium¬
phantly, that Episcopacy was in mortal hostility to
freedom; but when I referred you to a better definer
than Webster—Paul—for which you ought to thank me,
you admit that Bible Episcopacy is divine, but you think
it unlike Methodist Episcopacy. Why? Because all
the elders were bishops. I admit it, and so do all Me¬
thodist standards. Why not call them so? Because the
New Testament calls them both elders and bishops, apd
for the sake of marking the distinction in office of him
who is- called by his brethren to preside over them as
the primus inter pares—the first among equals, custom
has harmlessly appropriated the title of bishops to them
alone. But New Testament bishops did not preside
over elders. You are mistaken; even in Ephesus, the
Church referred to, there was the angel of the Church
of Ephesus, and John is ordered to write to him. Was
this a celestial spirit? No. Was it the collective body
"of elders? No; but one who was in a higher degree
7
A DISCUSSION ON
responsible for the integrity of the Church. It was, the
first among equals, a president or moderator, if you
please, of elders. Hear Dr. George Campbell, the Pres¬
byterian: (Eccles. Lect. p. 115.) " Certain it is, that
the very names of Church officers were borrowed from
the synagogue, which had also its elders, overseers,
deacons, and amongst whom one usually presided, who
was called the angel of the congregation, the title given
by our»Lord to the president of Christian assemblies."
Why, then, set an elder, if he be a bishop already, apart
by an ordination service to a higher office? Because
Paul, who was already an Apostle, was set apart by a
very solemn ordination service, for a special work;
" When they had fasted and prayed, and laid their
bands on them, they sent them away."—Acts xiii. 3.
Was this intended to make Paul an arch Apostle? By
no means. Well, just such is our ordination.
Bishop Capers contends, and so do I, that if our
bishops were mere officers of the Conference, in the
same sense as editors, and might be removed without
cause, by a single balloting, they should not be set apart to
their office by so solemn a ceremonial; but he, in the very
same passage, expressly disavows high Churchism. Our
bishops, sir, if not confined to a single Church, like Paul,
" have the care of all the Churches;" and in the inter¬
vals of Conferences, faithfully labor in word and doc¬
trine with the simplest of us. You desir-e to know whe¬
ther, in the polity of Methodism, the Holy Ghost or the
bishops appoint the overseers? Or are bishop and Holy
Ghost identical terms? Ah, that was the unkindest cut
of all. Do you wish to insinuate that our bishop is our
God? If not, what can be the meaning of your very ir-
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
lb
reverent question? Either the Holy Ghost called you
into the ministry, or you have entered into the fold by
some other way than .the door; and you know what
Christ says of such: "But if you were called of the
Holy Ghost, I need not say to you that human instru¬
mentality must designate your special field of labor;"
and so it is with us. I trust to hear no more of such
irreverence. Do not, therefore, fight against an Episco¬
pacy which is an importation from inspired men.
Bishop Hamline's resignation, with the consent of his
brethren, does tell unmistakeably that we hold but two
orders in the ministry, jure divino, by divine right; had
God instituted a third order, and called him to it, he
could not innocently have resigned it without the di¬
vine permission, as an elder, cannot, without sin, aban¬
don the ministry to which he is called: howbeit, after
the example of Apostolic Churches, we may invest any
of these heaven-called men with a special presidency.
Charles Y. was not German Emperor, jure divino, he
never was by divine right, which is the point in question,
anything more than- a German citizen.
It now becomes my painful duty to correct a whole
series of the most palpable misrepresentations of facts I
have ever known made by an educated and respectable
minister. It is in the analogy you have drawn between
the English Church and ours. In doing this, I shall
quote from "The Union of Church and State," by the
Hon. and Rev. Baptist Noel, an open communion Bap¬
tist. You say, that in "the Episcopal Church of Eng¬
land, all the powers of government, legislative, execu¬
tive, and judicial, are in the hands of the clergy—the
power to supply Churches is in Episcopal hands—in the
16
A DISCUSSION ON
ecclesiastical councils of the English Church, no lay¬
man's voice is ever heard—in the ecclesiastical polity of
England, the revenues of the Church, which proceed from
the people, pass beyond their constitutional control into
the hands of its rulers—to become a member of the
Church of England, a man resigns his right of suffrage,
&c., and so in all these respects is it in the Methodist
Episcopal Church." Hear Mr. Noel on all these points
seriatim,: "Bishops and pastors have no manner of spirit¬
ual jurisdiction within the (English) Churches, but from
the Crown—the Crown may delegate its spiritual autho¬
rity to ecclesiastical lawyers, who may exercise all
Church discipline within the Churches in its name—all
ministers of the Church of, England must acknowledge
this supremacy of the Crown in spiritual things, on pain
of excommunication."—p. 130. " The Court of Arches,
acting by authority of the Crown, will punish any min¬
ister who, with the concurrence of the whole Church of
which he is pastor, should refuse the communion to any
ungodly person whom he could not legally prove to be
an open and notorious evil liver."—p. 159. And second¬
ly—in England, the prelates (or bishops) are nomi¬
nated by the State.—p. 15. " In England, nearly all the
Churches have pastors imposed upon them by the State."
Again: "The Crown presents to 952 benefices, arch¬
bishops and bishops to 1248, ecclesiastical corporations
to 181, dignitaries to 1851, colleges to 121, and private
patrons to 5096."—p. 211. And I may add, the disposal
of these at auction is very common. "The result is,
the Churches have pastors forced upon them from these
five classes—1, college-fellows; 2, political adherents of
the Government; 3, sons of patrons; 4, sons of wealthy
METHODIST EPISCOPACY. U
men, who pay for situations for them; and 5, sons of
clergymen, who find it easier to educate their sons for
the Church, than for any other profession."—p. 223.
Thirdly—"Anglican curates are totally unrepresented in-
the sacred synod of the nation."—p. 328. Fourthly—"The
supremacy of the State determines the settlement of the
pastors within the Establishment, its doctrine and wor¬
ship, its discipline and government."—p. 135. Fifthly—
"all persons holding titheable property, must contribute
to the maintenance of the clergy, whether they approve
of the contribution or not, since the clergy may enforce
the payment of dues by process of law."—p. 120. This,
too, from all denominations. " As the State is the own¬
er of the ecclesiastical property, by which it maintains
the incumbents of the Establishment, it has a right to
resume those funds."—p. 242.
In this picture of the Church of England, you have lay
managnment to the fullest extent you could desire—lay lords,
and members of Parliament, and lay judges, with a lay
woman (Queen Tictoria,) as the head of the Church—
appointing bishops and pastors, and determining doc¬
trines, worship, and government, and the State taxing
Methodists, Baptists, and Presbyterians, under civil
penalties, for the support of the clergy of the Church of
England.
Is Methodist Episcopacy like this, sir? Does the State
of Alabama do all this for us? In view of this exposure
of your most palpable misrepresentations, by so high an
authority as the celebrated Baptist minister, the Bev.
Mr. Noel, I now formally demand of you, as an honest
man, a solemn and unqualified retraction of your glar¬
ing errors in the points specified.
18
A DISCUSSION ON
When you are told our "bishops have no legislative
power whatever, or anywhere; no vote 'in the trial of
either a member or a minister; neither executive, legis¬
lative, nor judicial power in our General Conference,
and no executive authority in any one of our thousands
of Churches; you seem to give up the question of the
anti-Republicanism of our bishops, and say you mean by
Episcopacy—a government by the clergy. With the
next breath you take back your recantation, and wish
to know "Why should a bishop care to vote—as well
might it be said because the kings of England never
had a vote in Parliament, therefore the British Govern¬
ment is a pure Democracy." Now, without dwelling
upon the fact, that king's can dissolve Parliaments, and
even queens have ordered them not to attempt to legis¬
late where they forbade them; that no acts of Parlia¬
ment become laws of the realm without the signature
of the monarch; though Bishop Hamline said "It would
be treason for a bishop to unreal his lips in the General
Conference,"—(Debates, p. 130); I will show under what
conditions only, the analogy between an English king
and an American Methodist bishop would hold good.
First; The office of an English king should be elective,
like that of the bishop. Secondly; The Parliament should
have the power at every session to inspect his acts, and
depose him, and even deprive him of the rights of an
English citizen, if he were guilty of imprudence; just as
our General Conference can do with our bishops, for im¬
prudence. Thirdly; That he should have no power to
either veto or sanction their laws, as our bishops have
none. Fourthly; That any member of Parliament, or
citizen, might retire with honor from under his jurisdic-
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
19
tion, as any minister or member with us, can demand a
certificate of good standing, with the avowed purpose
of joining another orthodox Church. And lastly; That
Parliament can materially change the powers of a king
by a single vote, as the General Conference can, the
power of our bishops. Now, my brother, you need not
be astonished if I should pronounce such a monarchy as
that, exceedingly Democratic.
Still you think an itinerancy, constituted such by the
suffrages of our people, in two distinct votes, is anti-
Republican, if it admits no lay delegation. Let us see;
suppose, for instance, you had one hundred Baptist iti¬
nerant ministers assembled in Convention in Montgom^
ery, to be scattered to the four winds, in such a way as fre¬
quently to involve heavy sacrifices, severe labors, great
privations, and often pecuniary loss—all cheerfully sub¬
mitted to, for the sake of preaching the gospel to
every creature—would you, could you, think* it fair
and just, and Republican, that laymen, whose know¬
ledge of the work and of the men must be limited, from
the fact that their business keeps them at home, and
who make no such sacrifices themselves, .should rise in
Convention and order every one of the supposed one
hundred Baptist itinerants to their several fields of la¬
bor, and then quietly return to their homes, leaving the
itinerants, who had no voice to appoint them to a single
duty, to strike their tents, and go wherever these home-
keeping lay delegates ordered them. I can tell you,
from experience, that if you were a regular itinerant
Baptist, you would soon feel, deeply feel, the one-sided-
ness of such Republicanism.
With regard to business in which the laity are
80 A, DISCUSSION ON
equally interested with the ministry — such business
as constitutes the entire sphere of operations of your
State and Southern Convention—we have already lay
delegation and lay management;, witness our Joint
Boards of Finance, and our Tract, Sunday School,
and Missionary operations. Our great Missionary
Society, which disburses $160,000 annually—our lar¬
gest collection, has eight lay and four clerical mana¬
gers; and so of the rest. If, therefore, a layman de¬
mands the privilege of scattering one hundred minis¬
ters to the four winds, and then quietly returning home,
you will pardon us, Brother Henderson, if we know no
snch rights, if we comprehend no such privileges—it would be
a sin against Eepublicanism, of which we cannot, as pa¬
triots, be guilty. It was a fit sentiment to be uttered
by our bishops in the presence of the statue of that
Washington, whose blessings rested on their fathers..
But we are anti-Republican because J. O'Kelly's
resolution was lost by a large majority! Ah! indeed!
Did J. O'Kelly want lay delegation ? Not at all. If
the resolution had passed, we would have been no less
anti-Republican in your estimation. Had not the ma¬
jority a right to decline disputing about their appoint¬
ments? You forget yourself if you call this anti-Repub¬
licanism. Your frank, out-spoken, cordial acknowledg¬
ment that Methodists are as sincere Democrats and Re¬
publicans as any community of Christians in the United
States, pleases me. " A corrupt tree cannot bring forth
good fruit." I suppose you include alsp our noble
bishops in this patriotic category. I return the cour¬
tesy, and frankly avow my confidence in the patriotism
of American Baptists, and the cheerfulness with which
I would see them elevated to the highest offices in the
METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 81
land. I am gratified also with your cordial endorsement
of our glorious itinerancy. I begin to have some hopes,
that you will yet appreciate justly our noble economy.
I have prepared a full reply to every single point of
your last communication; but in regard to your wish to
give space for other communications in your paper, I
withhold a portion of it.
In conelusion, I remark, I would gladly join you in
requesting the publication of these articles in our
Church papers.
Yours, respectfully,
E. J. HAMILL.
June 7th, 1855.
82
A DISCUSSION ON
REPLY TO LETTER III.
TRUE ORIGIN OF METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
Hypothetical argument; Interesting letter from Mr. Wesley; Mr.
Wesley the father of Methodism, not of Episcopal Methodism; Ord¬
ination of Dr. Coke as superintendent, not as bishop, of the Am¬
erican Societies; Mr. Wesley's account of it; Interesting overture
of Dr. Coke to Bishop White and the Lord Bishop of London;
Thrilling letter from Presbyter Wesley to Bishop Asbury; A sad
mistake either in the book of Discipline or in History; The true
origin of Episcopacy; The General Conference persists in calling
Mr. Wesley by a name, than which he affirmed' he had rather be
" called a knave, or a fool, a scoundrd, a rascal;" The " bitter pill"
suppressed; Two interesting authentic documents placed in juxta¬
position; Bishop Baseom doubts the historical probity of Sec.
1st of the book of Discipline; Striking congruity between "the
caption of the article, and the text of Scripture superadded; Be¬
ing " a little out of temper" distorts one's fancy; unlimited range
of discussion asked and conceded; Points endorsed in the article
from the Watchman; Ebullitions of passion; The charge of false¬
hood repelled, and an explanation asked; A chase after the " Irou
Wheel;" Methodist Episcopacy not so ancient as Nebuchadnez¬
zar; Extract from a "Methodist Hymn;" John Wesley and Rob¬
ert Hall; Our civil liberties " so strangely" achieved, despite Mr.
Wesley's efforts; contrast between General Washington's respon¬
ses to the congratulatory addresses from Methodist bishops and
Baptist Churches; The Munster affair; The " unkind cut," the
only method of chastising clerical domination; " Three orders of
ministers are recognised;'* The " tug of war;" A sad predicament;
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
83
" Glaring errors;" Reversing propositions; Proof; Constitution¬
al officers of the Episcopal Church not private members; A " so
lemn demand of an unqualified retraction" declined; The predic¬
ament in which the demanded retraction would place " our Epis¬
copacy;" Baptist W.'Noel; Endorsement of the answer of .the
bishops to sundry memorials; The colors struck.
"Am I therefore become your enemy because JTtell you the truth?'"'—Patjl.
Up to this time, our argument has proceeded upon
the supposition that the books bearing the imprimatur
of the " Methodist Book Concern," contained a faithful
account of the origin of Episcopacy, as an organic ele¬
ment in the structure of American Methoclism. Its
Episcopacy is uniformly ascribed to John Wesley. Our
response has been: Suppose we grant this, so far from
proving that Methodist Episcopacy is pure Republican
democracy, it seems to us to prove the very reverse.
First, Because Mr. Wesley threw t^e. weight of his per¬
sonal and ministerial character against our revolution¬
ary struggle for independence, as we have already
shown; and Secondly, Because he expressly avowed on
the part of himself and his societies, in a letter to Mr.
Mason, dated "January 13th, 1790," seven or eight years
after our independence was achieved, " We are no Re¬
publicans, and never intend to be." A short extract
from that letter will be " to our purpose quite."
11 My Dear Brother:—As long as I live the people shall
have no share in choosing either stewards or leaders
among the Methodists. We have not nor never had,
any'such custom. We are no Republicans, and never intend
to be. It would be better for those who are so minded,
to go quietly away."—Wesley's Works, vol. vii., p. 98.
We say, granting all that Methodist authors claim,
84
A DISCUSSION ON
that Mr. Wesley is their patron saint—their spiritual
father in- respect of Episcopacy as well as other things
—it utterly annihilates their claim to Republican De¬
mocracy in their ecclesiastical polity.
That Mr. Wesley was the father of Methodism, is con¬
ceded on all hands. We make this concession to our
Methodist brethren with all cheerfulness, since it honor¬
ably exonerates Christ and his Apostles from all agency
in the construction of that system. It came into being
in its present form, seventeen hundred and eighty-four years
after the Christian era. But that he is the father of Epis¬
copal Methodism, is not quite ^o clear. The truth is,
Mr. Wesley was a member and presbyter of the Church
of England, and so far as we have ever learned, he never
withdrew from it to the day of his death. This we
think we can prove beyond all cavil, if it should be con¬
tested. His societies, were formed within that Church, for
the purpose of combining more efficiently its piety, and
for the individual happiness of the membership, without
intending that they should leave its communion.
But whatever may have been his individual views and
feelings in this respect, certain it is, that he had not the
remotest agency in foisting upon his American children
the Episcopal feature of their organization. Nay, it was
done despite his known views and most solemn remon-.
strances. This we shall now attempt to prove; but be¬
fore doing so, let us premise that we shall pursue the
main thread of this argument, irrespective of all impro¬
per issues or foreign matter. If we were to follow Bro.
Hamill, we know not whither he would lead us. We
shall, therefore, pursue our train of argument, devoting
only such portions of our articles to his communications
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
85
as may be essential to the mairj points at issue between
us. We shall try and be kind to his person, but as un¬
merciful to '* our Episcopaey" as the facts in the case,
and our powers of reasoning1 will allow. Our war is
not upon Methodists, but upon, their Episcopacy. We
love our Methodist brethren, because they love ouj: com¬
mon Lord, and have exhibited a zeal in his cause, wor¬
thy of all praise; but we repudiate their Episcopacy,
'because it is, in our honest judgment, of the earth,
earthy—it deprives a Bible constituency of their religi¬
ous rights—and is in direct contravention tp thp genius
of our free institutions, so far as it can moul£ the cha¬
racter and habitudes of its votaries in this respect. In
the hands of corrupt men, (and who shall Undertake'to
say that such men may never wear its mitre?) it may
stain American, as it has already crimsoned European
history, with crimes of the deepest die. We fight the
principle which conced,es such power to any men. We
claim for our ascended Lord, the supreme legislative
power over his Church; and we claim for that Church
the authority to expound and apply his already enacted
law, to all possible circumstances and conditions,.times,
and places.
In the Discipline of thp Methodist Episcopal' Church,
section first, it is affirmed that, as Mr. Wesley "pre¬
ferred the Episcopal mode of Church government to any
other, he solemnly set apart, by the imposition of his
hands and prayer, one of them, viz., Thomas Coke, doc¬
tor of civil law, late of Jesus College, University of
Oxford, and a presbyter of the Church of England, for the
Episcopal office; and having delivered to, him letters of
8
86
A DISCUSSION ON
Episcopal orders, commissioned and directed him to set
apart Francis Asbury, then general assistant of the Me¬
thodist Society in America, for the same Episcopal office;
he the said Francis Asbury being first ordained deacon
and elder." Now., it may seem to he a most unwarrant¬
able assumption on bur part to question a declaration
so solemnly set forth in the first page of this little vol.
ump, containing " The Doctrines and Discipline of the
Methodist Episcopal Church." But as the word of a
bishop or clergyman is not per se, infallible—-as they are
liable to be;mistaken as well as other men—we propose
subjecting this statement to the crucible to see whether
it will come forth as " gold tried in the fire."
In! the letter of ordination, which Mr. Wesley fur¬
nished to Dr. Coke, there is not the most distant allu¬
sion to the office of bishop. We have before ns a printed
copy of this document—declared by Mr. Drew, in his
life of Dr.. Coke, to be a " faithful copy, transcribed from
the original, in Mr. Wesley's own hand, writing, preserved
among .the papers of the late Dr. Coke." The clause in
this letter which defines the office to which Dr. Coke
was set apart, reads as follows:-—"And therefore, under
the protection of Almighty God, and with a single eye
to his glory, I have this day set apart as a superintendent,
by the imposition of my hands and prayers [being as¬
sisted by other ordained ministers] Thomas Coke, doc¬
tor* of civil law, a presbyter of the Church of England,
and a man whom I judge to be well qualified for that
great work.". The letter is dated "this second day of
September, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven
"hundred and eighty-four," and signed JOHN WESLEY.
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
81
Why it is that this " letter of ordination" has never
been printed with the minutes of -conference, or inserted
• *
m the Discipline, is left to the conjecture of the reader.
And yet it is the very document'on which the bold de¬
clarations are made, that Mr. Wesley " preferred the
Episcopal mode of Church government"—that he set
apart Dr. Coke to " the Episcopal office'%^and that he~
" commissioned him to set apart Francis Asbury „ . , .
for the" same Episcopal office." Or if there is any other
authority, it has never been produced, though challeng¬
ed time and again.
In 1791, that is, six or seven .years after he was or¬
dained by Mr. Wesley, Dr. Coke addressed a letter to
Bishop White, of the Protestant Episcopal Churph, of¬
fering in behalf of himsplf and Mr. Wesley, to use their
" influence to the utmost," which M was not small," to
transfer "above 60,000 adults in" the society in these
states ; and about 250 travelling ministers and preach¬
ers; besides a great number of local preachers, very far
excelling thp number of travelling preachers," together
with the " congregations jn these states amounting to
150,000," provided Bishop White will consecrate him,
Dr. Coke, bishop, Now, why was this overture made,
if he had already been " set apart by the imposition of
hands and prayers" " to the Episcopal office?" Failing
in this overture, Dr. Coke made a similar application to
the Lord Bishop of London, about eight years after¬
wards, declaring that " our numerous societies in Am*
erica would "have been a regular Presbyterian Church,
if Mr. Wesley and myself had not taken the steps which
we judged it necessary tp adopt." But •" his Lorship"
88
A DISCUSSION ON
would not " impart the Holy Ghost" to the doctor, and
there, so far as we know, the matter ended.
But we have evidence direct and emphatic—such as
it would be madness in any sane man to contest—that
Mr. Wesley never dreamed while he was setting apart
Dr. Coke to the office of superintendent, that that cere¬
mony would ever be metamorphosed into an " Episcopal
•ordination," as the Discipline affirms. Let the reader
distinctly observe that Dr. Coke's " ordination letter"
bears date September 2d, a. d. 1184. Four years after
this, as the reader will see from the date, Mr. Wesley
addressed the following letter to Francis Asbury, whom,
the Discipline declares he (Wesley) deputed Dr. Coke
to ordain to the " Episcopal office."
"London, Sept. 20th, 1188.
There is, indeed, a wide difference between the rela*
tion wherein you stand to the Americans, and the rela¬
tion wherein 1 stand to all the Metlwdists. You are the
elder brother of the American Methodists pi am, under
God, the father of the whole family. Therefore I natur¬
ally care for you all, in a manner no other person can
do. Therefore I, in a measure, provide for you all; for
the supplies which Df. Coke provides for you, he could
not provide were it not for me—were it not that I not
only permit him to collect, but support him in so doing.
But in one point, iny dear brother, I am a little afraid
both the doctor and you differ from me. I study to be
little, you study to be great; I creep, you strut along; I
found a school, you a colkge-^-naj, and call it after your
own names! 0 beware! Do not cease to be something!
Let me be nothing, and Ghrist be all in all.
One'instance of this your greatness, has given me
great concern. How can you, bow dare you suffer your-
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
89
self to be called a bishop? I shudder, I start at the very
thought. Men may call me a knave, or a fool, a rascal, a
scoundrel, and I am content; but they shall never, by my
consent, call me a bishop! For my sake, for God's sake,
for Christ's sake, put a full end to this 1 Let the Presby¬
terians do what they please, but let the Methodists
know their Calling better.
Thus, my dear Franky, I have told you all that is in
my heart, and let this, when I am no more seen, bear
witness how sincerely
I am your affectionate friend and brother,
JOHN WESLEY."
Now, after these solemn declarations on the part of
Mr. Wesley, what can we think of the authorities of the
"Methodist Episcopal Church, for continuing to publish,
in every impression of their Discipline, not only that Mr.
Wesley "preferred the Episcopal form of their Church
government," but that he absolutely did, ordain Dr.
Coke to the " Episcopal office!" These are historic facts
—we simply State them, and leave the reader to make
his own comments. The true origin of Episcopacy, as an
organic element in Methodism, as developed in. "-Lee's
History of Methodism," is this;
"In the course of the year (1181,) Mr. Asbu'ry re¬
printed the general minutes, but in a different form from
what they were before. The title of this pamphlet was as
follows:
"A Form of Discipline for the Ministers, Preachers,
and Members of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Ame¬
rica; considered and approved at a Conference held at
Baltimore, in the State of Maryland, on Monday the 21th
90
A DISCUSSION ON
day of December, 1T84, in wbich the Rev. Thomas Coke,
LL.D., and the Rev. Francis Asbnry, presided. Ar¬
ranged under proper heads, and methodized in a more
acceptable manner."
"This was the first time that our superintendents ever
gave themselves the title of bishops* in the minutes. They
changed the title themselves without the consent of the confer¬
ence; and at the next conference they asked the preach¬
ers if the word bishop might stand in the minutes, seeing
it was a scriptural name, and the meaning of the word
bishop was the same with that of superintendent.
" Some of the preachers opposed the alteration and
wished to retain the former title, but a majority of the
preachers wished to let the word bishop remain."—Lee's
History of Methodism, page 128.
The above will account for Mr. Wesley's letter to Mr.
Asbury, in 1188, the year after the title of bishop was
assumed instead of superintendent, in which he says
" Men may call me a knave, or a fool, a rascal, a scoundrel,
and I aift contenty but they shall never, by my consent,
call me a bishop! For my sake, for God's sake, for
Christ's sake, put a full end to this!"
Now, let the reader observe, that the next year after
Mr. Wesley wrote this letter to Mr. Asbury, the very
first question and answer on the minutes of Conference
are the following:
" Who are the persons that exercise the*Episcopal office
in the Methodist Church in Europe and America?
* It is somewhat remarkable that as soon as Mr. Wesley's name
was left out of the minutes, the term bishop was introduced into
them.
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
91
" Ans. John Wesley, Thomas Coke, Francis Asbury:"
It is fair to presume that Mr. Asbury had Mr. Wes¬
ley's letter at the time he and Dr. Coke were presiding
at the Conference of 1189; for in his Journal, vol. ii. p.
45, we find the following entry:
" 1189.-—South Carolina, March 15th. We reached
the'city, having rode two hundred miles in about five
days and two hours. Here I received a bitter pill from,
one of jny greatest friends." We suppose this " bitter
pill" was the above letter. Now what right had Messrs;
Coke and Asbury and the American Conference to con¬
nect the name of John Wesley with a title against which
he had protested in such unmeasured terms—a title, ran
ther than wear which, he would choose to be called
" a knave, a fool, a rascal, or a scoundrel?" It was
eertainly due the old man, that his name should not
be mentioned in any such connection. If they were de¬
termined to adopt the Episcopal form of government, it
was obviously incumbent on them to have taken the re¬
sponsibility on themselves, and allowed their minutes to
speak the truth. But, instead of this, the letter was
suppressed, and its contents, so far as they were con¬
cerned, never would have seen the. light of day. Nay,
the first thing done at the Conference next preceding
the reception of this letter, was, solemnly and before
God, to publish to>the world the name of John Wesley
as a bishop of the Methodist Church! "His name was
used," says the Rev. Mr. McCaine, who was thirty yeafs
an elder in that Church, " to give a degree of sanction
te their measures, which it was thought would disarm
resistance,af any were offered; and by this means was
92
A DISCUSSION ON
an Episcopal government established} the name of John
Wesley being offered as a passport to all the contem¬
plated ecclesiastical honors.
Now, let us apply the foregoing facts to our argu¬
ment. The "Discipline" alleges that Mr. Wesley "pre¬
ferred the Episcopal form of government,"—Mr. Wesley
solemnly protests that he had rather be called -"a
knave, a fool, a rascal, or a scoundrel," than to be called
bishop! The "Discipline" declares that he ordained Dr.
Coke to the " Episcopal office"—neither the word Episco¬
pal nor bishop occurs in the ordination letter. The "Dis¬
cipline" avers that he commissioned Dr. Coke to ordain
Francis Asbury to the "same Episcopal office"—four
years after the date of said letter of ordination, he
(Wesley) writes to Mr. Asbury, " For my sake, for
G-od's sake, for Christ's sake, put a full end to this"—
[" suffering yourself to be called a bishop."'] The " Dis¬
cipline" affirms that the Episcopal mode of government
was adopted in 1184, the year on which it is assumed Dr.
Coke appeared in America with letters of Episcopal au¬
thority from Mr. Wesley—and yet seven years after
this, to-wit, in 1191, Dr. Coke applied to Bishop White
for ordination to that office; and in 1199, he made a si¬
milar application to the Lord Bishop of London—that is,
he made two unsuccessful efforts to be ordained to the
office of bishop, aster both the " Discipline" and the
Minutes of Conference solemnly declare that he was a
bishop 1 What a pity the holy link in the succession
could not have been supplied! What an awful disaster,
that in attempting to stretch it across the ocean, tha
mystic chain snapped asunder 1
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
93
Suppose we place two or three of these documents in
juxtaposition, and see how beautifully they will har¬
monize:
Look at this:
Discipline, pages 1-2.
"Ashe (Mr. Wesley) preferred
the Episcopal mode of Church
government to any other, he so¬
lemnly set apart, by the imposi¬
tion of his hands and prayers,
one of them, viz: Thomas Coke,
doctor of civil law, late of Jesus
College, in the University of
Oxford, and a Presbyter of the
Church of England, for the Epis¬
copal office; and having delivered
to him letters of Episcopal orders,
commissioned and directed him
to set apart Francis Asbury,
then general assistant of the Me¬
thodist Society in America, for
the same Episcopal office," &c.
Minutes -of Conference for
1789.
"Who are the persons that
exercise the Episcopal office in. the
Methodist Church in Europe and
America?
"Ans. Johh Wesley, Thomas
Coke, Francis Asbury."
But if we should be considered uncharitable in doubt¬
ing1 the authority of a, fact which constitutes the foun¬
dation stone of the Methodist polity—if the members of
that communion should feel " grieved and insulted" as
And then at thtS:
Extract from Mr. Wesley's let¬
ter to Mr. Asbury, dated
"London, Sept. 20, 1788.
* * * * One instance of this
your greatness gives me great
concern. JHow can you, how dare
you suffer yourself to be called
bishop? I shudder, I start at the
very'thought. Men may call me a
knave, or a fool, a rascal, a- scoun¬
drel, and I am content; but they
shall never, by my consent, call
me a bishop! For my sake, for
God's sake, for Christ's sake, put
a full end to this." * * * *
I am your affectionate friend
and brother,
JOHN WESLEY."
94
A DISCUSSION ON
some political editors say, that we should not exercise
implicit faith in declarations solemnly made by the au¬
thorities of that Church just as often as there are im¬
pressions in the " Discipline" now extant—we beg to
summon to our rescue a man whom they will hear—
the late Bishop Bascom. In Dr. Bond's Economy of Me¬
thodism, he quotes Dr. Bascom as saying, "But Mr.
Wesley seems not to have contemplated an Episcopacy
in any shape. It is, to be sure, asserted in the Preface
to our Book of Discipline; but the oldest preachers in
the United States, with whom I have conversed and
corresponded on this subject, never-saw the warrant. It
has been called for by friends and foes for thirty years,
but it is not yet forthcoming. If such warrant exists,
why is it that we can learn nothing of itl But
until such warrant or document from Mr. Wesley be
procured, I, as an individual, must of necessity, continue to
doubt the historical probity of the Preface of our Book of Dis¬
cipline, in relation to this particular."—Economy of Me¬
thodism, p. 114.
We claim, then, that Bishop Bascom shall share equal¬
ly with us the odium of this incredulity. If a Baptist
editor commits an unpardonable offence in " doubting
the historical probity of the Preface of our Book of Dis¬
cipline," it is not a little consoling to him to know that
a Methodist bishop—the eloquent Bascom—is equally con¬
demned with him to endure the bitter penalty of that
terrible offence.
And here we must pause in this argument, for the
purpose of paying our respects to Brother Hamill's third
letter.
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
95
And first, the reader will observe a most beautiful
congruity between the caption of his article, " Method¬
ism, like its Creed—peace and good will to man," and
the passage of Scripture he has chosen for a motto—
" Presumptuous are they, self-willed, they are not afraid
to speak evil of dignities." The amiable spirit—the
peace and good-will to man" of Methodism, consists,
•then, in denouncing those who question the right of
bishops and clergy to legislate for the Churches, as
"■presumptuous, self-willed—not afraid to speak evil of
dignities." That is to say, if any person see proper to
suggest that it would be more in accordance with the
genius of our free institutions, for the governed to have
some voice in the government—that power, whether
civil or ecclesiastical, in the hands of an exclusive class
of men, irresponsible to any other power for its exer¬
cise, naturally tends to accumulation and corruption—-
he must be classed with those to whom Peter refers in
this passage, to-wit; " Those who walk after the flesh
in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government."
Of course, Brother Hamill designs this application of
the'passage, or he would not prefix it to his article.
Our brother seems to be a little out of temper. We
said in our former article, that we should rule out every¬
thing foreign in this discussion. He understands us as
meaning that we would mutilate his manuscripts te
suit our views of relevancy. Not so fast, Bro. Hamill.
We simply meant that,, according to the common rules
of debate, you had -no moral right to introduce foreign
matters; and that if-you did, it was not incumbent -on
us to leave the mstin question under discussion, and fol¬
low all your aberrations from the point or points at is-
96
A DISCUSSION ON
$ue between us. Your restiveness on this subject furnishes
an impressive illustration of the fact, that Methodist
clergymen brook no sort of control when engaged with
an alien, or, as your motto suggests, " the presumptu¬
ous and self-willed." Go on, brother. Whatever you
write, whether it be on that horrible practice of " close
communion," or the " Munster insurrectionists," or, if
you should choose to give us your views of " Mormonism"
as Brother Ferguson has done, (see last paper) we
will print it all, without the " displacement of a single
word." All we have to say is, that we do not exactly see
the pertinancy of such topics to the subject we are discussing.
You charge us with endorsing the following .odious
articles from the " Watchman:" " Methodist Episco¬
pacy is a foe to human rights:" the very point we are
discussing, Brother Hamill. How could we "take the
ground that Methodist Episcopacy is auti-iiepublican,
without regarding it as a "foe to human rights?*' Fur¬
ther, that " it exerts a paralyzing influence over freedom
of thought"—if suspension and expulsion from your
Church for discussing " the mutual rights of minister^
and members paralyzes freedom of thought," we humbly
submit that we have proved this beyond the possibility
of a cavil. " It has imposed articles of faith upon the
people, without their consent." Yes, sir, it has. Where
and when have the local ministers and private members
of your Church, individually or collectively, in their own
persons or by representatives, delegated the right to
your bishops an^ travelling preachers, to " impose ar¬
ticles of faith" upon them? If such right ever has been
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
91
Conceded, it can be proved.' " Methodist's degrade them¬
selves by submission to bishops, in tegardr to Church
property, more than Roman Catholics." The famous
Suit brought by the bishops of the Methodist Episcopal
Church, South, to recover their proportion of funds in
the "Book Concern," was decided by our civil authori¬
ties on the ground, that the property of the Church vest¬
ed in its bishops and clergy; whereas Catholic congre¬
gations have contested this very point before the Same
tribunal with success. This we will either prove or re¬
tract. w Our bishops control our public moneys and
buildings." The writer in the Watchman asks and ans¬
wers thus: "Who holds the deeds for every inch of
ground, and every Episcopal Methodist Church in th6
land? The Conference, alias the 'bishops." Will Brother
Hamill deny this? If so, the proof is at hand to any
amount. Finally, the bishops " can control the suffrages
of our members," &c. This is» not stated as a fact, but
as a proposition to be argued from facts. And whether
the writer proved it or not, is left to the judgment of
the reader. Brother Hamill is the last man on earth
who ought to charge us with'" twisting'in and twisting
out.-"
After we had extended to Brother Hamill all the cour¬
tesy he asked—allowing him, nay welcoming him, to
the unrestricted use of our columns, a privilege that
we still accord to him—and in all our allusions to him,
using terms of the utmost respect—we say, after all
this, judge of our surprise at the following declaration:
" Of what you allege against Methodism, I must deliber*
ately say to you, they are all and each of them, "utterly
false. * For proof, see iny first- article, which you have
9
98
A DISCUSSION ON
barely deigned to notice." We bad hoped, Bro. Ha mi 11,
that you were a stranger -to Grub-street vernacular—
that your Bro. Ferguson, had monopolized that depart¬
ment " of pur Episcopacy." What we have alleged
against Methodism is "utterly false!"—is it? Let us
see. We have said that the Annual and Quadrennial
Conferences of the Methodist Episcopal Church are
composed, ex officio, of the bishops and travelling cler¬
gy; that neither local preachers nor private members
have any voice in their deliberations; that the basis of
representation in the General Conference is not the nu¬
merical strength of the membership of the Churches, but
of the travelling preachers; that this distinct feature of
Methodism is never to be changed, since the " fathers of
the Church have taken the pains to throw around it the
sanctity of an irrevocable decree f that in neither the
legislative, executive, or judicial departments of govern¬
ment in your Church, have the laity aay representative;
that Methodist Episcopacy deprives the membership of
the Methodist Church of the right to choose their own
pastors— a right as dear to the u Lord's freed men" as
any other he has conferred; that Mr. Wesley, the father
of Methodism, after spending a portion of his time among
• our Colonies, before the Revolutionary War, and acquir¬
ing a commanding influence among them, on account of
his talents and piety, threw the whole weight of that
influence against our struggle for national independence,
and declared on the part of himself and friends, many
years after the war was ended—"We are no Republir
cans, and never intend to be;" that several of his
preachers had to flee the country during that war, on
account of their Tory principles, "and that Mr. Anbury,
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
the first Methodist bishop ordained in America, had to
conceal himsejf from the popular fury for the same rea¬
son; that large numbers of official and private members
of the Methodist Episcopal Church were suspended and
expelled for" promoting a movement in that Church, to
incorporate into its polity the great REPRESENTA¬
TIVE idea of our civil government; that a respectful
petition was presented to the General Conference, in
1824, praying " that the government of the Church might
be made representative, and more in accordance with the
mutual rights of the ministers and people," and that the
petition was met by the stern rebuke Of the bishops,•*-
" Pardon us if we know no such rights, if we comprehem,d no
such privileges we say these are*substantially the points
we had " alleged against Methodism," up to the time
Brother Hamill wrote his present article. ARE THEY
" UTTERLY FALSE ?" But perhaps we have mistaken
the punctuation of our brother; perhaps he designs the
charge to refer only to the article from the "Watch¬
man." If so, the reader can judge, after reading both
articles, how far the writer of that article has been con¬
victed of falsehood.
We are not defending Brother Graves—he is able to
do that himself—but discussing Methodist Episcopacy.
We must, therefore, wait until our brother returns from
chasing the " great iron wheel."
We said Uiaf ecclesiastical power had been invoked
by secular ' princes, to establish and perpetuate their
thrones—as well as to carry out some -of their basest
purposes—and lol Brother Hamill asks* "Did Nebu¬
chadnezzar, Alexander, Tiberius, the Sultan, &c. &e.
&c., owe their thrones to—American Methodism?" Not
A DISCUSSION ON
at all. True, we used to hear a long metre hymn in
our boyish days, one. stanza of which ran thus :
" The world, the Calvmists, and Paine,
May hate the Methodists in vain,;
Their doctrines shall be downward hurled,
The Methodists will take the world."
But we never dreamed that Methodism reached quite
so far back into antiquity as Nebuchadnezzar, True,
we are aware that that renowned king became quite
orthodox once, and because some of his subjects chose
to worship God contrary to the royal "ritual," "know¬
ing no such right, and comprehending no such privi¬
lege," he dealt with them after the- true spirit of Epis¬
copacy, as exhibited in the Romish and English Churches.
Perhaps it was some such association of ideas as this
that brought up the imago of this Babylonish monarch
to our brother's fruitful imagination.
The difference between John Wesley and Robert
Hall, was this: Mr. Wesley sent out " superintendents"
and Missionaries, inimical to our cause, and visited in
person our Colonies, and then used the influence thus ob¬
tained, against our struggle with Great Britain for inde¬
pendence. Robert Hall never did this. His political
tracts show what his sympathfes were. But Mr. Wes¬
ley "judged it best that" we " should stand fast in that
liberty wherewith God had so strangely set us free!"
Very * nobly spoken" indeedl " God has made them
free," despite Mr* Wesley's efforts to the contrary. And
then it was "so strangely" done! If the good old-man
could only have " known the rights and comprehended
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
101
the privileges" for which we were contending, perhaps
it would not have been so strange after all.
But then the Methodists presented a congratulatory
address to General Washington, on his accession to the
Presidency, This was quite patriotic; but not more
so than similar" addresses from other religious bodies,"
two of whom were before them, if Jared Sparks is
right in the arrangement of the Washington papers.
But if our brother dwells with so much rapture upon
the General's response to this address, in which he "ini;
plored the divine benediction On" their* w religious com¬
munity," into what^ecstacies would it have thrown him,
if he had read in that response the following: "While
I recollect with .satisfaction that the religious society of
which you are members, have been, throughout America,
uniformly and almost unanimously, the firm friends to
civil liberty, and the 'persevering promoters of our glo¬
rious Revolution, I cannot hesitate to believe that they
will be the faithful supporters of a free yet efficient gen¬
eral government."f Yet this was in his response to a
f On the accession of General Washington to the Presidency of
the United States, the various religious denominations of the country,
in connection with other bodies, presented congratulatory addresses
to him, to which he uniformly responded in respectful terms. -The
following are his answers " to the bishops of the Methodist Episco-.
pal Church in the United States," and " to the General Committee
representing the United Baptist Churches ill Virginia." They are
extracted from "The Writings of Washington," vol. xii, pp. 153-155,,
" To the Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church
in the United States.—May, 1*789.
" Gentlemen:—I return to you individually, and, through you, to
your Society collectively in the United States, my thanks for the
102 A DISCUSSION ON
similar " congratulatory address" from the Baptists.
But we shall make no invidious comparisons.
The Munster affair, of Germany, in the sixteenth cen¬
tury, is also dragged into this discussion. It is done
demonstrations of affection and the expressions of joy, offered in
their behalf, on my late appointment. B shall still be my endeavor
to manifest, by overt acts, the purity of my inclinations for promot¬
ing the happiness of mankind, as well as the sincerity of my desires
to contribute, whatever may he in my power towards the preserva¬
tion of the' eivil'and religious liberties of the American people. In
pursuing Jhis line of conduct, I hope, by the assistance of Divine
providence, not altogether to disappoint the confidence which you
have been pleased to repose in me.
" It always affords me satisfaction, when I find a concurrence in
sentiment and practice between all conscientious men in acknowl¬
edgments of homage to the great Governor of the Universe, and in
professions of support to a just civil government. After mentioning
that I trust the people of every denomination, who demean them¬
selves as good citizens, will have occasion to be convinced that I
shall always strive to. prove a faithful and impartial patron of gen¬
uine, vital religion, I must assure you in particular, that I take in
the kindest part, the promise you make of presenting your prayers
at the throne of grace for me, and that I likewise implore the Di¬
vine benediction on yourselves and your religious community.
GEORGE WASHINGTON."
" To the General Committee, representing the
United Baptist Churches in Virginia.—May, 1789.
" Genteemen:—I request .that you will accept my best acknowl¬
edgments for your congratulation on my appointment to the first
office in the nation. The kind manner in which you mention my
past conduct equally claims the expression of gratitude.
41 After we had, by the smiles of heaven on our exertions, obtained
the object for which we contended, I retired, at the conclusion of
the war, with an idea that my country could have no- further occa-
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
103
•with many palliations and -qualifications—but still it is
done. We intend to notiee this at a proper time; but
as it is not vitally connected with Methodist Episcopacy,
wfe dismiss it for the present.
sioa for my services, and with the intention of never again Entering
into public life; but, when the exigencies of my country seemed to
require me once more to engage in public affairs, an honest convic¬
tion of my duty superseded my former resolution, and beeame my
apology for deviating from the happy plan which I had adopted.
" If I could have entertained the slightest apprehension, that the
constitution formed in .the convention, where I had the honor to
preside, might possibly endanger the religious rights of any ecclesi¬
astical society, certainly I would never have placed my signature
to it; and if I could now conceive that the general government
might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience
inseeure, I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more
zealous than myself to .establish effectual barriers against the hor¬
rors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution.
For you doubtless remember, that I have often expressed my senti¬
ments, that every man, conducting himself as a, good citizen, and
being accountable to God alone, for his religious opinions, ought to
be protected in worshiping the Deity-according to the dictates of
his own conscience.
" While I'recollect with satisfaction, that the religious society of
which you are members have been, throughout America, uniformly
and almost unanimously the firm friends to civil liberty, and the
persevering promoters of our glorious revolution, I cannot hesitate
to believe, that they will be the faithful supporters of a free, yet
efficient general government." Under this pleasing expectation, I
rejoice to assure them, "that they may rely on my best wishes and
endeavors to advance their prosperity. r
" In the meantime be assured, gentlemen, that I entertain a pro¬
per sense of your fervent supplications to God for my temporal and
eternal happiness. WASHfflGT0N .
104
A' &SCUSSION ON
As Brother Hamill persists in confounding Methodist
=with Bible Episcopacy, we shall devote an article to
that subject at an early day. We must correct an er¬
roneous impression on our brother's mind, in regard to
a question or two we asked: " In the Methodist polity,
does tLe Holy Ghost or the bishops- appoint the over¬
seers? Or are bishop and Holy Ghost identical terms?"
" Ah!" exclaims our brother, " that was the unkindest
cut of all!" Now, God forbid that we should speak un¬
kindly of any^one, more especially of a New Testament
bishop. We reverence smch*a man'wherever we see
him. Paul has described him'in his Epistles to Timothy
and Titus—portions of holy wtit which have been the
themes for ordination services among most Protestants,
time out of mind. Such a minister we honor, no matter
to what denomination he belongs. But when even a
good man thrusts himself, or permits others to thrust
him into a position not of God's bidding j when man
shall attempt to create a " dignitary" in the Church of
Christ, higher in* authority than either the Church or
those whom the " Holy Ghost has made bishopswho
assumes the prerogative " to change, receive, and sus¬
pend preachers <as necessity may require, and as the
Discipline directs ^ to fix the appointments of the preach¬
ers for the several circuits; to oversee the spiritual and
temporal business of the Church; to hear and decide ap¬
peals of th$ quarterly meeting Conferences, on questions
of lai)v; to choose the presiding elders, to fix their sta¬
tions, and to change them when he judges it necessary,"
&c. &c.; we say, when such a dignitary is obtruded into
the sacred precincts of Zion—" lording it oyer God's
clergy," (for that is the signification of kleros in Greek,
METHODIST EPISCOPACY,
105
and so old Wickliffe translated it,)-—it is not " unkind"
in us to rebuke the intruder, even if we should use the
stern language of Virgil's priest..
" Procul hinc! procul este, profani,
* * * Totoque absistite luco!"
Is it not true that the bishops of the Methodist Epis¬
copal Church appoint the " overseers" in that Church?
Is it not true that in the New Testament economy, Paul
affirms that the Holy Ghost appoints these " overseers?"
And when man assumes the prerogatives of that Spirit,
the inquiry is pertinent, whether such authority is* iden¬
tical with that of the Holy Ghost.
As Brother Hamill still maintains that there are but
two orders of clergy in his Church, .we quote two others
of his Church authorities on that subject. Drs. Emory
and Bangs, in w Buck'js Theological Dictionary," say—
" THREE ORDERS of ministers ARE recognized, and
the "duties peculiar to e^ch are clearly defined." We
suppose these eminent doctors, when writing- tin article
for a standard work, vrhich was intended to give a
faithful account of what Methodism is, would not be
likely to have mistaken two for three. *
But now " comes the tug of war." Brother Hamill
says—" It now becomes my painful duty to .correct a
whole series of the most palpable misrepresentations of facts
I have* ever known made by an educated and respeota-
ble minister." And then, after convicting us to his own
entire satisfaction, concludes by making the followmj?
very modest and delicate demand: " I now formally de¬
mand (!) of you," (Episcopal to the core!) " as an hon-
106
A DISCUSSION ON
est mail, a solemn and unqualified retraction of your glar¬
ing errors in the points specified 1"
On reading this, we really felt-our humble self.in the
predicament of an old poet:
" To laugh, were want of goodness and of grace;
And to be grave, exceeds all power of faoek"
The " points" we suggested are these : That in the
English Church, the power's of government are in the
hands of the clergy; that the power of ordination is
vested in the hands ©f its bishops; that the right -of
supplying the Churches with pastors, was in the same
Bands; that in her ecclesiastical councils, (chapters
they are called) the laity are not represented; that the
revenues .of the Church, collected trom the people, pass
beyond their constitutional control into the hands of its
rulers; and that the right of suffrage is denied to its
private members. All these* with a single exception,
as they relate to the Church of England, are "palpable
misrepresentations of facts!" Then the converse of each
one of them, except one, is true! Let us see how they
will sound. In the ChurOh of England, the powers of
government are not in the hands of the clergy, i, e. it
is not Episcopacy, since Episcopacy means, according
to Webster, (pardon us, brother, for introducing Web¬
ster again, if yOu please, as it is a prevailing opinion
that he is competent to define a common English word,)
" the government of the Church by bishops or prelates."
That the right of supplying the Churches with pastors
is not in Episcopal hands—then the Churches have a
right to choose their own pastors I True, the Crown,
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
the lords of the manor throughout the realm, ecclesias¬
tical corporations, dignitaries, and college Churches, as
hy constitutional- law, officially connected with "the
Church," have the right to nominate persons to the va¬
rious benefices within their several jurisdictions; but-
the confirmation of these nominations is in the hands of
the- bishops. So we understand the following, from the*
Encyclopaedia of Religious Knowledge, Art. Episcopacy.
'' The jurisdiction of a bishop, in England, consists in
collating to benefices," (presenting to benefices,)" grant*
ing institutions on the presentation oe other patrons
commanding induction; taking care of the profits of va¬
cant benefices for the use of the successors," &c.
Now, if we can .understand the language of Episco¬
pacy, (though, no very great adept in the " speech of
Ashdod,") the above-clearly shows, that an appointment
to a benefice by," other patrons" must be confirmed by
a bishop- before the appointee can legally enter upon-
his office. And. moreover, the point we were seeking to
establish was, that the Cbprches, as such, in the estab¬
lishment, bad no*right to choose their pastors. It would
seem that it was impossible for our brother to have
mistaken our meaning. But to proceed with the *' points
specified." In the ecclesiastical councils of the English.
Church the laity are represented! That is, Episcopacy,
is not Episcopacy! "A dean and chapter," Says Buck, "are
the bishop's council, ta assist him in the affairs of reli¬
gion;"—a "dean presides over at least ten canons or
prebendaries;" a chapter is "a community of ecclesi¬
astics belonging to a Cathedral or college Church."
The revenues of the Church, collected from the people,
108
A DISCUSSION ON
do- not pass beyond their constitutional control, notwith¬
standing, Mr. Noel's averment that-" all persons holding
titheable property must contribute to the maintenance
of the clergy, whether they approve of the contribution
or not"—Methodists, baptists, all nonconformists—they
all have the " control" of their funds, after the payment
is " enforced by process of lawl" And finally, that the
right of suffrage is not denied to its private members!»
Then they can act with the "council to assist him (the*
bishop) in the affairs of religion," by their chosen repre-'
sentatives, at least! All this we are asked -toido! to*
reverse our original propositions!!
Now, we did not take it upon ourselves to inform our
readers that the'Church of England was established by
law, and that the crown, by consequence, w&s the high¬
est recognized officer—the lead—of that Church. We
really thought we might take it for granted that this
was known by men. of common intelligence. In the
days of King Henry VIII, the right of appointing the
Arch-Bishop of, Canterbury, the highest ecclesiastic in
the realm, belonged to the crown. But when Elizabeth
came to the throne, because, the Scriptures declared
that a woman was not permitted to speak in the Church,
this prerogative was waved by the Queen, and the ap¬
pointment of that dignitary, ever since, we believe, has
devolved upon the "chapter."
Must we say to Brother Hamill, that the constitution¬
al officers of the Church of England, whether they be
king, queen, lords, noblemen, or patrons, are not pri¬
vate members? If the jqws pf the realm invest them
with a portion of Episcopal authority, whether they are
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
109
preachers or not, are ^they not part and parcel of that
Episcopacy? Is not the Crown the great embodiment
of this Episcopacy—the head of the Church—defender
of the faith? Are official members of Churches to be
regarded as private members, simply because they do
not preach?
Sincerely do we thank Bro. Hamill for his quotations
from Mr. Noel, The reader has in these extracts a
pretty fair portraiture of the corruptions and tendencies
of Episcopacy. What Episcopacy m England now is,
Episcopacy in America may be hereafter. Re'ad these
extracts from Mr. Noel again, and then say, what are
we to expect from the daughter, when the mother prac¬
tices such abominations as these? There may be " lay
management to the fullest extent" if the constitutional
officers of the Church are laymen; but we submit, there
is not much lay representation in that management.
Shall we make an " unqualified retraction" of these
" glaring errors," Brother Hamill? .We should like to
do so on several accounts. First,, we should like to
please you in such an affair. We do not like to dis¬
obey clerical " demands," Secondly, if we could do so,
it would wonderfully strengthen our argument in regard
to the anti-Republican nature and tendencies of Method¬
ist Episcopacy: JFor the sake of strengthening this ar¬
gument, we could wish—sincerely wish—that you could
prove that we were mistaken in every one of these
points. In that case, you would sqcceed in proving
what? Why, that an Established Church in a Monarchi¬
cal Government, is more Democratic in its structure
than the Methodist Episcopal Church of the free Oom-
10
a discussion on
110
united states! \ Shall we "retract"
-monwealth °f ^ ®hurctl « alone in its glory?" No; we
and leave y°uruntii we ^ave some better evidence that
cannot ®ts^ein, than has yet been furnished.
^ThcTsnm and substance of all these extracts from Mr.
Noel, may be stated in a^ few words. The Episcopal
authority in the English Church, whether in the hands
of the Crown, lords, noblemen, prelates, or what not, as
its constitutional officers, is corrupt and corrupting—
as it is hot amenable to the people, no check can be in¬
terposed upon its abominations—its piety is a libel
upon the Christian name—and therefore, although
holding a high position among its dignitaries, he with¬
drew from it, and connected himself with the Baptists,
and was soon followed by several hundred members of
his former charge.
As we are not arguing the congruity of Methodist
Episcopacy with English monarchy, we leave our friend
to present as many points of contrast between an Eng¬
lish king and a Methodist bishop, as his imagination can
supply.
And so you endorse the answer your bishops gave to
the memorials of local preachers and private members,
praying for the right of representation in the law-mak¬
ing councils of your Church—Pardon us if we know
no such rights, if we comprehend no such privileges!"
Well, we do not wonder that you have struck your usu¬
al caption from your articles, " Methodist Episcopacy
not anti-Republican/' How a government, whose con¬
stitutional authorities oan answer a petition from its
citizens asking* to be represented in its legislative, exe-
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
Ill
cutive, and judicial departments, that they " know no
such rights, that they comprehend no such privileges,"
can nevertheless be Democratic or Republican, would
puzzle a Jesuit to see. We are not astonished, there¬
fore, that Brother Hamill has taken down that sign.
But our space will not allow us to proceed further.
We say in-conclusion, that the publication of these ar¬
ticles in some one Or more of the Methodist journals, is
left entirely to the negotiation of Brother Hamill.
June 7th, 1855.
112
A DISCUSSION ON
LETTER IT.
METHODISM.
More twisting ; Encouraging admissions; Mr. Noel on government
of the English Church by worldly politicians; A queer Parlia¬
mentary Episcopacy; Danger of Methodist Episcopacy being
controlled by the State as English Episcopacy is; Retraction re¬
fused ; Fate of those who would mend our doctrines; Bishop As-
bury's claim upon the Methpdist Book Concern; Challenge to
publish a Church deed ; Freedom of speech again ; Parallels up-
>on the title of Bishop; Dr. Coke's injudicious application for re-
ordination ; Father Jesse Mercer's opinion of a Ministers' Confer¬
ence ; The strange Representation in the Southern Baptist Con¬
vention ; A Quarterly Conference metamorphosed into another
Episcopacy; Prerogatives of the laity; Reasoning which will de¬
termine the funny problem; The Methodist Church government
resembles our civil government metre closely than the Baptist
Church government does, proved by several logical arguments;
Twenty Baptist ministers in Canada, threw off the yoke of Close
Communion ; John Bunyan's, Baptist Noel's, and Robert Hall's
; abhorrence of the same yoke ; Connectionalism of Methodism; A
Baptist excommunicated for joining a sister Church; Beauties of the
Republicanism of the Alabama Baptists, as portrayed by their own
historian, Rev. H. Holcombe ; A gracious privilege rescinded;
Anti-Republican resolutions of sixteen Baptist Churches; A Bap¬
tist's opinion of the persecuting spirit of the Claiborne Baptist
Church ; The Alabama Baptist State Convention votes that an in¬
fernal spirit gets into every Baptist community, however small;
METHODIST EPISCOPACY 113
Paternal chastisement; Baptist inquisitorial taxation without re¬
presentation ; The penalty ;• The modus operandi ©f assessment;
Uncommon submissiveness ; Burns ; If Baptists are not dqual to
angels, a civil government, framed after the model of their Church
government, would not do; Anecdote.
" Fair as themoon, clear as the sun, terrible as as army with banners,"
" Out ot thine own mouth^will I judge thee.."—Luke.
Brother Henderson :
We are gratified that you u love our Methodist
brethren, because* they love our common Lord, and'have
•exhibited a zeal in his cause worthy of all praise." A
gpod tree bringeth forth, good fruit.. How does this de¬
claration square'with your "'honorably exonerating (of)
Christ and his Apostles from all agency in the construc¬
tion of Methodism." More twisting, my dear brother.
'Still we accept gratefully the—all praise for zeal in the
Lord's cause, and leave the twistification in your undis¬
turbed possession.
"Admission after admission of the excellence -of our
system, falls almost unconsciously from your lips. Our
love and zeal "for the Lord, so praiseworthy—-" we are
as good Democrats and Republicans as any in the land,"
—"the credit of it (our glorious itinefancy) belongs to
all forms of Church government"—you no longer ""ar¬
gue the congruity of Methodist Episcopacy with Eng¬
lish Monarchy." Really this is encouraging; it fully re¬
compenses me for the task of rectifying your opinion of
our excellent Church government. I continue this hope¬
ful work.
Let Mr. Noel inform you more perfectly of the power
of English bishops, in confirming the nominations of lay
patrons to benefices. " If deans and chapters refuse to
114
A DISCUSSION ON
elect the prime-minister's- nominee, eaeh member of the
chapter is liable to the intolerable penalties of a pra-
munire. No cases of a refusal occur, the patronage of
a prime-minister carries him through all difficulties."—
p. 181. Hear Queen Elizabeth's threat to the Bishop of
Ely; "Proud prelate, you know what you were before
I made you what you are;-if you do not immediately
comply with my request, by God, I will immediately un¬
frock you."—Noel, p. 41, Again: jou wish to know
"if the. laws of the realm invest them (Queen, Lords,
Parliaments, &c.) with a portion of Episcopal authority,
are they not part and parcel of Episcopacy?"! 1 Ha! ha I
Episcopacy, indeed! You are like one who has had a
hard fall: objects multiply before your vision. Hear
Noel once more; "Anglican Churches are placed
under the ecclesiastical government of worldly politi¬
cians, assembled in Parliament, including Roman Ca¬
tholics and Unitarians."—p. 400. How do you like this
lay delegation?, You answer, " An Established Church
in England is more' Democratic than the Methodist
Church in the United States." That is to say, an union
of Church and State is better Democracy than a separa¬
tion of Church and State. Well done, Brother Hender-_
son! I did not think you capable of making so anti-
Republican an avowal! We do certainly eschew all
such Democracy as that., You think " what Episcopacy
in England now is, Episcopacy in America may be."
Fie! fie! Brother Henderson* Pray do not charge our
civil government with the design of uniting Church and
State.
You ran a parallel between the Methodist Church and
the Church of England. I showed you, upon the autho-
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
115
rity of Mr. Noel, t"he marked 6ontrast, in specified points,
between the Churches, and asked of your candor a re¬
traction of the comparison. You evade the issue, and
refuse it. Let the public judge between us.
You re-assert that " we impose articles of faith upon
our people without their consent." Now, it is known
to the world that every one who joins our Church, vol¬
untarily subscribes to the articles of our faith, which
cannot be changed by any Church power whatever: be*-
cause they are Bible truths. Does not a candidate for
membership in your Church do the same thing? If any
join us, who will be " carried about with every wind of
doctrine" and
" Who think religiouls intended
For nothing else than to be mended,"—Hudibras.
we are soon happily relieved by the first proselyter who
comes along, and bears away his dupe triumphantly.
The Methodist Book Concern is not the property of
the bishops, as you wrongfully state; it is held by the
entire body of ministers in the several Conferences, for
specified purposes: first, the dissemination of religious
literature; and secondly, that the profits of the Concern,
if any, shall be applied to the relief of the deficient or
distressed preachers, and the widows and orphans of the
holy defid. Bishop Asbury, one of its founders, the man
who soared so gloriously to the tops of the highest
mountains, in extreme poverty, to preach the Gospel,
said, "I am resolved not to claim any property in the
Book Concern; it shall be sacred to invalid preachers."
&c. Every solitary contributor to this fund, contributed
to it with the express understanding that it should be
116
a Discussion on
so used. Is it, then, anti-Republican to obey the voice
of the people who created it, in carrying out their wish¬
es in this useful and sacred charity? Catholic congre¬
gations have never contested any such point. They
have no Book Concern at all, that I know of. With re¬
gard to Church buildings, I now call on you to publish
the deed of any Methodist Church in the land, and let
the public se.e for themselves whether your charge is
true or false. Is it Grub-street vernacular to pronounce
utterly false, the charge that bishops can control the
suffrages of our members? ! 1
Your own articles prove our unlimited freedom of
speech; from them we learn that the Methodists have a
queer way of punishing freedom of speech, by making
the disaffected, such as McKendree and Bascom, bishops!
The noble ladies whose relatives were expelled, tell us
themselves, their kindred "were denounced as back¬
sliders and disturbers of the peace." And your own
Baptis-t Discipline says, p. 20, " When a member breaks the
peace of the Church by j anglings and disputings, he shall be
suspended." Your verbose attack upon the mere title of our
bishops, I summarily dispose of in the following paral¬
lels:
Look at this :
" i firmly believe i am a scrip¬
tural jEpiscopos, as much as any
man in England."—John Wesley.
" Their father in the Lord, may
be called the bishop or overseer of
them all.—John Wesley.—Witt's
Wesley, p. 135.
" A bishop must be blameless."
—Paul.
Then at this :
He solemnly set apart Thomas
Coke, a presbyter of the Church
of England, for thef Episcopal
office."—Methodist Discipline.
" The way appointed by Christ
for the calling of any person to
the office of bishop or elder in the
Church."—Baptist Discipline, p.
56.
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
11T
It is objected that Mr. Wesley reproved Mr. Asbury
for assuming the title of bishop, though he thought him¬
self a scriptural JEpiscopos. Tb the assumption of the
title, simply, because of its abuse, I allow Mr. Wesley
was opposed, but not to the thing signified by it. And
our American brethren showed a laudable independence of
Mr. Wesley, in. preferring the scriptural term, bishop, to
its synonym, superintendent. But neither Mr. Wesley,
nor the Baptist Discipline, nor Pgiul, meant to call those
who chose to be styled bishops rather than superinten¬
dents, either knaves, fools, or rascals. Bishop Asbury
kindly says, "These unpleasant expressions of the dear
old man, (were) occasioned by the misrepresentations
of others." What a tempest did you awake to waft a
feather!
Dr. Coke injudiciously, perhaps, would have submit*
ted to re-ordination, just as Timothy allowed Paul to
circumcise him, not because he would not have been a
good minister, or bishop without ity but to enlarge.his
influence.
Upon the subject of " a Conference Episcopacy"—of
ministers, hear Father Jesse Mercer, that good old
Georgia Baptist, Memoirs, p. 269, " If all the ministers
of our order in the State, had at once formed a Ministers1
Meeting, with a view to maintain the unity of the faith
in the Churches, and had co-operated in the work of the
ministry, all those distracting controversies which have
broken the peace, and spoiled the beauty of our
Churches, would have been prevented." Was this anti-
Republican?
Methodism delights in iay delegation, in all matters
wherein the laity are equally concerned with the minis-
118 A DISCUSSION ON
try—in financial, missionary, and other boards.* But
we guard against such an irregular representation as
formed the constituents of your last Southern Conven¬
tion, in Montgomery. In that Convention, called South¬
ern, and in which, therefore, fourteen States should
have been nearly equally represented, there were two
hundred and four delegates; one from Florida, none
from Texas, &c., and ninety-four of them from Alabama.
Now suppose our Congre.ss had two hundred and four
delegates., and ninety-four of them from Virginia, one
from Florida, none from Texas, &c., would you call this
a Representative Congress? I trow net.
You are pleased to term our Quarterly Conference,
"an Episcopacy." Ha! ha! And if the party himself,
who feels aggrieved carries his case before it, it is anti-
Republican! I suppose you know our highest authori¬
ties condemn a reference. Once more allow me to say
of the judicial, and executive power of our laity, without
^the vote of the laity, iione can be licensed to preach; none
can be received into the itinerancy; none can be received
into the Church. As I myself received ly vote of the Church,
fourteen into full connection, on the very Sabbath before
yotir article appeared, affirming the membership had no
voice in this matter. I add also, that the suffrages of
the laity, are indispensable to every Church act, in every
one of the thousands of our- Churches. Besides their
management in all of our grand enterprises.
I have now followed you step by step, and examined
thoroughly, and faitly, the ground of your charge, first,
against our bishops; secondly, against what you term
our Conference Episcopacy; and lastly, against your
newly-invented Quarterly Conference Episcopacy; and
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
119
I find your accusation of anti-Republicanism, in every
case utterly groundless. If, therefore, you still imaging
Methodism anti-Republican, a similar style of reasoning
will determine your funny problem, of the distance of a
kitchen fifteen feet square from the spring—it will prove
anything.
I now affirm that the Methodist Church government,
resembles more closely our civil government, than the
Baptist Church government. In proof of this, I use the
argiimentwm, ad hominem—recognized in logic as a legiti¬
mate argument. I state it thus: Our Federal, and I
might add, our State government is Republican, That
which approximates most closely to it, is most Republi¬
can. But the Methodist Church government, is more
nearly after this model, than the Baptist Church govern¬
ment; therefore, the Methodist Church is more Repub¬
lican than the Baptist Church. Now for the proof, that
the Methodist Church is more perfectly after this Repub¬
lican model. The Methodist Church does not usurp au¬
thority over the conscience of her members, in debarring
them from holy communion with their orthodox breth¬
ren, at the Lord's table; but the Baptist Church does
deprive them of this Christian liberty. In this respect,
American Baptists are far behind, perhaps, a majority
of their English brethren. Those great lights of your
Church, John Bunyan, Baptist Noel, and Robert Hall,
abhorred the practice of close communion; and the last
named, expressed himself in indignant terms in, refer¬
ence to the tyranny of this practice. I know not
whether your members chafe under this restriction, but
I do know, that constituted as my mind is, it would be
impossible for the Methodist Episcopacy, and entire
120
A DISCUSSION ON
Church, to place upon my neck so galling a yoke* as
this—which forbade me to commune with my dearest
kindred, were they never so pious, if they followed not
with us. Twenty Baptist ministers in Canada have re¬
cently resolyed- to submit no longer to this arbitrary
dominion over their conscience. No power could com¬
pel me to debar from the Lord's table Christians whom
I knew to be living temples of the Holy Ghost, even if
I thought their baptism utterly defective. If, therefore,
liberty be at all synonymous with Republicanism, we
are certainly -in this respect, more Republican than the
Baptist Church.
Again: " Each Baptist Church is not subject to the
cognizance of any synod or council whatever; nor have
Associations any Church power properly so called, nor
any jurisdiction over the Churches themselves—to exer¬
cise any censure," &c.—Baptist Discipline, p. 58. If,
therefore, our civil government were framed on this
plan, we would have no legislature properly so called,
nor judiciary, nor executive, and hence no government
at -all; our country would boa vast chain of broken
neighborhoods, perfectly denationalized. But the con-
nectionalism of Methodism, binds us together into one
great harmonious whole, with due restrictions upon
every several part; it is therefore more after the model
of our civil government*.
Again: Methodism grants an honorable dismissal to
any member, who desires to withdraw and join a sister
Church; but the Baptist Church will not allow a mem¬
ber to withdraw and join a sister Church, without the
censure of excommunication.—Baptist Discipline, p. 23.
Our Republic will allow a citizen to expatriate himself,
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
121
without censure; but despotic governments will not
allow this; therefore in this, our Church resembles our
civil government, and yours the government ©f despots.
Again: Your own historian furnishes us with many
striking instances of what he himself terms anti-Repub¬
lican legislation in the Baptist Churches of Alabama;
such instances as are unequalled elsewhere in the his¬
tory of the orthodox Churches of*our Republic, I quote
from the " History of Alabama Baptists," by Rev. Hosea
Holcombe, endorsed by the Alabama Baptist State Con¬
vention, 1835., He says—-"Herewe see the separating
line drawn; - here we see the large body of the^lenomin-
ation in Europe and America, excluded by the minority,
and comparatively a small one."—pi 98. This is con¬
trary to- the principle of Democracy, that majorities
should rule. Of a Church called Bethel, he says, " A re¬
solution was -oftce passed in this Church, that each mem¬
ber should enjoy the liberty of doing as -he pleased in
missionary matters—give -Qr let alone, as he deemed
right." Gracious privilege, was it not?—to give a mem¬
ber the liberty of using his own morrey, in sending a
Baptist ministry to those destitute* of the Gospel!
Verily, the members should have been, thankful for so
Democratic a grant! But their joy would have been
short; for he says, " This was found too Republican, for the
preacher, and by his influence it was rescinded."—p; 108.
Again: A friend, writing to him of the Claiborne Baptist
Church, says, " 1 need not tell'you the foundation of all was
laid by that cursed anti-missionary spirit wjikh, while it cries
out freedom, Republicanism, <&c., would fetter the consciences
of thoste who have been benevolent in their practice; and I have
been led to the conclusion, that if the power was by them posses-
11
122
A DISCUSSION ON
sed, the conscience is not all they .would bind/ but the body
would be doomed to endure all the horrors of a dungeon, if
they were permitted to escape the lash."—p. 114. This is* a
clear case of anti-Republicanism. You will please take no-'
tice, it is not I, but a Baptist, who prefers this charge.
Once more: Speaking of the Conecuh River Association,
p. 246, he says, " A division has taken place, sixteen ,
Churches declaring in favor'of the anti-Republican, anti- Chris¬
tian, and'anti- Gospel resolutions." I will not dwell longer
at present upon the nurperous cases of awful, tyranni¬
cal, and anarchical legislation in the Baptist Churches
of Alabama', so deeply deplored by your good Brother
Holcombe. Your own commendable devotion to the
missionary cause, tells plainly, that if you "had been in
the days'of your fathers, you would not have been par¬
takers with them;" nevertheless these sad results are
justly chargeable upon your defective Church govern¬
ment, which gave scope for such sad legislation; I
think with Jesse Mercer, that an union of ministers,
like our Conference,, for instance, would largely "have
prevented such disorder.
Fi*om the records* of your last State Convention in
Montgomery, published in your own'paper, May 31"st, I
fear the same evils still exist in your community. I
find in the report of the Committee on Education, adopt¬
ed by the Convention, and I" suppose, approved by your¬
self—a' report presented by your excellent brother-in-
law, my old friend, Brother Talliafierro, of Talladega, the
following language: God forbid that" we should ever
lift up our voice against the independent or congrega¬
tional fbrrn of government held to by the Baptist
Church, (we would not oppose Christ and his Apostles)
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
123
but against their frequent abuse of it, we would lift up
our voice like a trumpet, and tell our people of their
transgressions. We would go further, and become ex¬
orcist; for if the Holy Messiah would not assist us
against a demon so loathsome and filthy, (sectional pre¬
judice,) we would, if Satan would for once depart from
his usual policy, form an alliance'with him, and it should
be proclaimed, to an astonished world, ' Satan had cast
out Satan.' This infernal -spirit gets into every" Baptist
community, however jmall, magnifies their territory, into the dig¬
nity and importance of an empirp, makes their existence depend
upon the i\l success or downfall of every other interest unpro-
motive of their own." This is awfully severe; but it is
the language of your late Convention, and 1 imagine I
may justly call it yours also. Of the truth of it, you
yourselves are the best judges^ Modesty and charity
forbid me speaking so harshly of the Baptist Church as
you have done in the above extract-r but I suppose chas¬
tisement from your own household is considered pater¬
nal, and therefore allowable, when a similar castigation
from a stranger would be warmly resented.
You have, beep free to charge us with taxation with¬
out representation, albeit .to recommend the support of
.the ministry without threatening Church censure, can¬
not be properly called taxation. The nearest approach
to taxation proper, and almost without representation,
X have dver known in any Church in, -our free country,
Was in the action of your own ministers' and deacons'
meeting, Tuskegee, April 21th. There were present at
that meeting, .fifteen ministers, fifteen deacons, and
twelve private members. It is fair to assume that these
fifteen ministers represented thirty Churches, each min-
124
A DISCUSSION ON
ister representing two Churches. On looting over the
list of deacons and private members, I find that nearly
half the deacons, -and ten out of twelve of the private
members, were from the Tuskegee Church; so that the
remaining twenty-nine Churches were represented, apart
from the ministers, by about seven or eight deacons and
but two private members—a very slender representa¬
tion, truly. ' At this meeting, which it would be a mis¬
nomer to call a representative assembly, the question is
asked, "What should be done with a Church member
who, having the ability, refuses to give as God has pros¬
pered him, for the support of the gospel?" "" Ans. He
should be labored "with and admonished, and if he per¬
sists in his cdvetousness, he should be excluded from
fellowshipIn another part of the same minutes, you
define the passage "as God has prospered him," thus:
" each member-furnishing the deacon a statement of the
-value of his property and income, so as to enable them
to make a pro rata distribution among the membersIt
was by no means improper, in the big'-souled Baptists
of Tuskegee, for such arer many of them, to have recom¬
mended liberality; but -to demand that statement of
the value of both property and income of the ibembers, was
rather too inquisitorial; and then to threaten exclusion
Against anywho refused this, inquisitorial taxation, was
altogether too hasty a measure. Look at the practical
workings of the rule. Imagine a deacon "asking a plant¬
er the value of his lands, negroes, and nett proceeds of
his crop; Requiring a merchant to give a statement of
bis assets, properly classed, as good or .doubtful, and
his liabilities, the probable loss on unsaleable goods,
the amount of his sales, aud the nett gain thereof, all.
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
125
expenses being paid. Imagine the deacon inquiring of
the money-lender, " What amount, Brother -, have
you loaned out on. interest?" And if he shaved notes', as
unfortunately is "sometimes the case, the nett profit
of the transaction? All these particulars-—for a. state¬
ment of the value of* property and income involves them
all—given under the threat 6f exclusion from fellowship,-
and as. the mis-called representative assembly ordered
it. I think, sir, you will find your decree impracticable.
If, however, your members submit to it, it is their busir
ness, not mine... I should, however-, be glad to know it;
for I should then frankly admit that your members bear
off the palm from all Churches for docility and snbmis-
siveness to the powers that be. Yery sure am I, that
every Methodist Church I have known, would be rather
refractory under this yoke.
" O wad some power the giftie gie us,
To see ourselves as others see us,
It wad frae many a blunder free us,
And foolish notion."—Burns.
I think highly of the ability of .your people for self;
government, notwithstanding the numerous defects of
your Church government. I know they would not wish
to frame a civil .government upon so disjointed a plan.
If they did, I would assuredly think them sadly defec¬
tive in law-making skill; or if the civil government
framed after this pattern, were found sufficient for their
wants, I would then regard them as angels, infallible in
intellect and Imfnaculate in heart—incapable of misde¬
meanors, and who, therefore, would need no government
at all. But to err is human.
126
A DISCUSSION ON
With this demonstration of the fact; that" the Method¬
ist Church government is more after the model of our
civil government than yours, if you think your go¬
vernment better, it will be like the preference of the
Irishman, who said, " The moon was more useful than
the sun, for the sun gave light in the day-time, when we
did not need it, whereas the moon shone when it was
dark.7* For your argument I have given you argument;
for your railing, my only answer is—silence. I have
spoken in the fear of God, and, I trust, kindly, as I
would promote and not retard thp Success of the gospel
in -all the tribes of God's Israel^
Your fellow-servant in Christ,
E. J. HAMII/L.
June 21st, 1855.
METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 121
REPLY TO LETTER IY.
INTERIOR VIEW OF METHODIST lEpiSCOPACY,
BY MASTER ARTISTS.
Advantages of religious controversy; Discrimination between men
and principles; Absolute clerical power,unscriptural and danger¬
ous; A peep at the inner vail; Back ground 'sketch by Bishop
Bascom, and a full portraiture by Bishop Hamline; Mr. Ham-
line rewarded "with a bishopric; Analysis of the picture; Human
• credulity has some bounds, which clerical demands may not pas6;
A Presbyterian's opinion of the picture; Mr, Hamill's fourth let¬
ter; Congratulated on the improvement of hih tone and spirit;-
The " fair" and " clear0 disc of Methodism makes John "Wesley
" start and shudder;" " Twistification;"- Natural mistake; Dexter¬
ous use of Mr. Noel's armory; Transparent perversion; Articles
pf faith and discipline imposed upon the laity without their con¬
sent; Hudibrasjj Anpther quotation from Hudibras; " Parallels;."
Mr. "Wesley in a dilemma; •Singular perversion of a garbled ex¬
tract from the Baptist confession of faith; Mr. Wesleymompetent
to cOnstrrte his own act; A digression in ^pursuit of >Mr. Hamill;
Four fundamental points in Baptist Church polity; Deacons' Meet¬
ings^ associations -and conventions; A terrible crime against "our
free country;" The "decree" of an " advisory- coundlj1'1 All forms of
-government susceptible of abuse; Reception and expulsion of
members in the M. R Church; Father Mercer; The " standards "
on-sacramental communion; The Baptist ground occupied by all
denominations; Robert Hall's denunciation pf the inconsistency
. of Pedobaptists in asking the Baptists to sacrifice a principle from
which the practice of. each results; Explanation asked.
" As certain also of your own poets Ijave saifl.v—AcT^xvii^28.
Religious controversy, conducted in an elevated tone
of-Christian principle and candor, ever has and ever will
128
A DISCUSSION ON
be a most prolific source of blessing to the Churcb and
to thg world. For the time being, it may create an un¬
due and even unpleasant excitement; but the perma¬
nent good it accomplishes, far outweighs its temporary
evils. So long as truth is held to be dear to its vota¬
ries, so long will its maintenance devolve upon them
the- arduous and often unwelcome task of defending it
against all the conflicting claims of error. Indeed, truth
and error must, in their very nature, forever antagonize.
" I have come," says Christ, " to set fire upon the earth;
arid what will I if it be already kindled?" And again:
" Every plant whioh my Heavenly Father hath not plant¬
ed, shall* be footed up." Tt\e truth is, God himself pro¬
claimed war against" sin and error in the very instant
of their introduction to this world: " I will put enmity
between thy seed and her seed.'*" And this war has
been going on ever since, and will continue until one
party or the other shall be totally exterminated. It will
be a sad day for truth when its friends, out of complais¬
ance to popular opinion, or out of a sickly, sentimental
catholicity, can quietly see its virgin form hewed in
pieces, and perverted to purposes alien to its original
intendment, afid never lift their voices in its defence.
And when error shall assume the sacred vestments and
symbols of religion, and come to us habited " as an "an¬
gel of light," beseeching us fo accept, of its protection
and patronage, it were treason against the. throne of
Omnipotence to yield to its overtures. Then the Chris¬
tian—he who loves God better than man—ought to grasp
the sword of the Spirit, and pierce the " stolen livery"
with as little-compunction of conscience, as if it were
furnished, from the wardrobe of perdition.
METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 129
Thus much, then, in regard to religious controversy
in general. We have already stated, in reference to the
subject under immediate discussion, that we are con¬
tending with no man or set of men, as such. We are
fighting a principle, upon.which we cannot detect* the
divine signature—a principle which transfers into-Epis-.
copal hands the rights and privileges of the Churches of
Jesus Christ—which reverses the whole govermental
economy of the Kingdom of Christ, by making the Churches
the servants of the ministers, instead of the ministers the servants
of the Churches—and which, if unrestricted by other modi¬
fying agencies, will go on accumulating, until the "history
of Episcopacy in America will be but too faithful an echo
of its history in the old world. We challenge any man
to show a solitary instance in which such unlimited,
supreme, and irresponsible power has been claimed by
the Clergy in any period of ecclesiastical history, where
it has not ended in corruption, intolerance, and unre¬
lenting persecution—where it has not ultimately become
the right arm of political tyranny. We care not how
pious, honest, numerous, and forminable, the present
friends and apClogists of Episcopacy may be in this
country. It is all- the more dangerous for this. We
proclaim it upon the house-top—we nail the thesis to the
door of each and pvery of its adherents, be they num¬
bered by thousands, millions, or hundreds of millions—
that the history;of Episcopacy, up to the period of its
establishment in'this country, is written in carnage and
blood. And when such a system of intolerance,'bigotry,
and persecution rears its head iu this happy land of
freedom, religious and political'—we care not how its
lineaments maybe softened by the pencil of artists—we
180
'A"discussion on
care not with what meekness and discretion its mitre
may be worn by its present dignitaries—it is an as¬
sumption of power which God has never delegated even
to angels. And we proclaim eternal hostility to. such
an unwarrantable assumption -of power on the part of
any set of men, however wise their heads or good their
hearts. Said an intelligent and well read member of
the Methodist Episcopal Church to us, not a year ago,
in urging the importance of there being a variety of
sects in the world, " The tendency of ecclesiastical
power -ever has been, and ever will be to corruption."
We have been, up to this time, attempting to deline¬
ate the exterior of Methodist Episcopacy—occupying
the-attention of the reader with such views of it as
would naturally strike the attention of the casual obr
server.
We now propose entering within the vail, taking
with us two artists of established reputation, whose
names will impart a value to their picture, which will
not only give it a place, in every Methodist parlor, but
also in the parlor of every well-wisher to Church and
State. We mean Bishops Bascom and Hahline. The
first shall sketch the hack-ground—the second shall paint
the portraiture.
"Art. 8^. Where all the power and forms of govern¬
ment are held and managed by a few, -who act without
delegated right by consent of the people, the authority
of the rulers is absolute, and the people are disfran¬
chised of all right, in the various relations existing be¬
tween them, as subjects, and those who hold the reins
of government. Such a government must always lead
to mental debility, will-depress the moral vigor of a
people, and necessarily abridge the liberty of reasoning
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
131
apd, investigation. In all governments of this kind,
right is the creature of fortune, and the' slave of caprice.
Those who live tinder a government, which denies to
the people the right of representation, blindly engage
to submit to the will of others, right or wrong, and
must continue to do so, or else deprive themselves of
all the advantages of the community in which they live,
in order to get rid of its'evils. The enactment of all
laws and rules, therefore, should be with and by the
consent of the people, and their execution strictly under
their control."
No contemptible limner, this Henry B. Basoom. But
now for the portraiture. We quojte from the "Debates
in the General, Conference, held in the City of New York,
1844," pages 128-129. -
" Mr. Hamline said— * * % * class-leader,
by mere eccentricity, becomes unpopular in his class.
The pastor- at discretion removes him from his office.
The exhorter or unordained local preacher proves unac¬
ceptable, and a Quarterly Conference refuses to renew
his license. The itinerant pastor is hot useful in his
charge and the bishop or the presiding elder deposes
him from his charge or from the. pastoral office, and
makes him an assistant. The presiding elder impairs
his usefulness on a district, not by gross malfeasance,
but by a slight misfeasance; or oftener still because 'he
is not popular,' and the bishop removes him to a station
or a circuit, and perhaps makes him an assistant. I
speak not now of annual appointments, when the term
of" the itinerant expires by limitation, but removals by:
the bishop or the presiding elder in the intervals of con¬
ference, which always imply a deposing from office, 'as
well as a stationing act. In all these instances, the
manner of removing from office is peculiar. First: It is
summary, without" accusation, trial, or formal sentence.
It is a ministerial, rather than a judicial act. Second,:
It is for no crime, and generally for no misdemeanor,
132
A DISCUSSION ON
but for being 1 unacceptable/ Third; Most of these re¬
movals from office are by a sole agent, namely, by a
bishop or preacher, whose will is omnipotent in the
premises. Fourth; The removing officer is not legally
obliged to assign any cause for deposing. If -he do so,
it is through courtesy, and not as of right. Fifth: The
deposed officer has no appeal. If indiscreetly or unne¬
cessarily removed, he must subedit; for there is no tri¬
bunal authorized to cure the error, or to rectify the
wrong. But we believe that there are good and suffi¬
cient reasons for granting this high power of removal
to those who exercise it. It promotes religion. It binds
the Church in a strong and almost indissoluble unity.
It quickens the communication of healing influences to
the infected and the enfeebled parts of the body ecclesi¬
astical. In a word, it is a system of surpassing energy,
and ' is worthy of all eulogy.'"
ikr. Hamline was elevated to the rank of bishop, after
making the speech from which we haye taken the fore¬
going extracts, and at the very same Conference. So that
we may regard his exposition of Methodist Episcopacy
as having been endorsed by the General Conference of
the United States.
Now, reader, it becomes us to speak in a serious^ tone.
'Here is an embodiment of ecclesiastical power, growing
up under the boughs of the tree of liberty, assuming to
do what? Look at it sternly in the face.. You cannot
plead that an intervening veil obscures the picture.
Methodists 1 look at itl and we have mistaken your al¬
legiance to the King of kings and Lord of lords, as
well as your love of liberty, civil and religious, if, after
steadfastly gazing upon it long enough to comprehend
its outlines, you-do not feel an honest indignation rise
in your bosoms at such despotic assumptions on the part
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
133
of your bishops and clergy. You cannot plead ignor-
a'nce of the existence< of this unbridled, unlimited su¬
premacy of your Episcopacy, for we have dragged it to
the light of day, and exposed it to your view. Again
we ask, what do these Rabbis in General Conference as¬
sembled assume? Listen, ye who-are charmed with thq
tl Democratic element" in this system of spiritual despot¬
ism;
The class-leader may be removed from his office at
the discretion of the pastor—the pastor may be reirfoved
at the discretion of the bishop or presiding elder—the lo¬
cal preacher may be suspended at the discretion -of the
quarterly Conference—the presiding elder may be re¬
moved at the discretion oi the bishops. Now, let it bq dis¬
tinctly noted, that in every step of this disciplinary pro¬
cess, the very existence of the Church is utterly ignored J" It
is not even recognized as an advisory council. The
constituencies who have -to bear the burdens, and who
are the parties immediately interested in these offices,
are not so much as consulted in their removal. But
then look at the mdnner in which such removal proceeds.
" In all these instances," (specified above) M the "manner
of removing from office is peculiar. First: It is summary,
WITHOUT ACCUSATION, TRIAL, OR FORMAL SENTENCE. SeGOnd:
It is for no crime, and generally for no misdemeanor, but for
being 'unacceptableJ Third; Most of the removals ate by
a sole agent, namely, by a bishop or preacher, WHOSE
WILL IS OMNIPOTENT IN THE PREMISES.—
Fourth: The removing officer is not legally obliged to
assign any cause for deposing. If he does so, it is through
courtesy, and not as of right. Fifth; The deposed officer
has no appeal. If indiscreetly or unnecessarily removed^
12
184
A DISCUSSION ON
HE MUST SUBMIT, for there is no trilunal authorized to
cure the error or rectify the wrong." Let us condense- it
all into a single sentence. The manner -of removing
from office is summary, without trial or accusation-r-is for
no crime, only Tor being unacceptable—mostly by a sole
agent, a bishop or preacher, whose will is omnipotent in
the premises, and who is not bound even to give any rea¬
son for his act—and the Victim of his tyranny has no ap¬
peal; 'whether justly or unjustly treated, he must submit!
for there is no tribunal to rectify the wrong !! All this was
solemnly set forth before the General Conference of the
Methodist Episcopal Church of the United States, as an
exposition of ^Methodism asil is, and the author of it was
immediately elevated to the rank of a bishop! And we
are required to believe that this "peculiar" "system of
surpassing energy" is ''worthy of all eulogy!" That it
beautifully harmonizes with American Democracy 1 and
that he wljo cannot seethe "Democratic element" in this
system, must possess a " judgment overpowered by a
strange prejudice!" There are some drafts upon hu¬
man credulity that cannot well be honored. Now, in
regard to the dogma of transubstantiation, whdn a Ca¬
tholic priest gravely assures us that the piece of, bread
he holfls in his Jiand has been transmuted by some
strange spiritual hocus pocus, into the veritable flesh of
a body that was crucified eighteen hundred years ago,
our eyes, touch, taste, and smell to the contrary not¬
withstanding, it strikes us that it would be perfectly
respectful to decline the honor of implicit faith. Or in
regard to baptismal regeneration; if an Episcopalian
priest or bishop should dip his hand in water, and eprim
kle a few drops in the face of an unconscious child, and
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
135
pronounce meanwhile the solemn baptismal formulary,
and then gravely beseech us to believe that that child,
although the instant before this ceremony was perform¬
ed^ was beyond the covenant of mercy, is -now regenerat¬
ed and grafted into Christf—without intending the slight¬
est disrespect to his reverence, we would persist in
saying, Non ego credulus illi—-we have not been able to
see where the Divine being has assigned to a few drops
of water an agency which -is uniformly ascribed to the
Holy Spirit. And when a Methddist Episcopal clergy¬
man entreats us to believe that a governmental edonomy,
in which a million and a half of subjects, (wedake the
reputed membership of that Church) have no n5bre voice
in its legislative or administrative polity, than the sub¬
jects of the Czar, except the bare privilege of submission
—an economy in which the will of its self-constituted
rulers " i» Omnipotent in the premises," there being no
"tribunal" 11 to rectify the wrong,"—all we have to say
is, " Pardon,us if we know no such" Democracy, "if we
comprehend no such" -Republicanism.
And that out Methodist brethren may see. that we are
not alone in this matter; that they may know what
their Presbyterian brethren think of this "peculiar"
" Democratic element" in their Church organization—
we will close this part of our argument by. introducing
a short extract from an article in the " Calvinistic Ma¬
gazine,41 written, we believe, by its then editor, Rev. F.
A. Ross, now pastor* of the Presbyterian Church in the
city of HuntsviLle, in this State. If they complain of
what a Baptist editor has written, what will they say
when they read, the following from a Presbyterian editor#
Referring to the aforesaid exposition of Methodism, by
136
A DISCUSSION ON
Mr. Hamline, he says: " Look at it, ye members of the
Methodist Church. Look at it. What! A system, 'worthy
of all eulogyWhat say you, genius of America? She
answers, 'The Methodist system is death to all the institu¬
tions for which Washington fought and freemen died!'
What says the Gospel? The Gospel tells us 'The Me¬
thodist system is AntiX^rist—for it is the very identical
priestly power which has crushed and trodden underfoot the
liberty wherewith (Jhrist doth make free in every age. of the
world ^ ^ *(* *
Turn we now to Brother Hamill's fourth letter. And
first of allr we cannot but congratulate our brother on
the evident improvement in the tone of the present as
compared with his last communication. Its spirit is
honorable alike to his head and his heart. "Richard is
himself again.". Its logic is, however, as yet an open
question.
"Methodism," then, is "fair as the sun, clear as
the moon, terrible as an army with banners 1" How
"fair" and how "clear" it is, we have been trying to
discover. The father of it avers, in reference to that
feature of it we are discussing, viz., its Episcopaey, that
he had rather be called a knave, or a fool, a rascal, a
scoundrel, than to be called" a bishop! And if the re¬
nowned John Wesley could not steadfastly gaze upon
its "fair" and "clear" disc, without " starting and shud¬
dering," we suppose it must have been from the super¬
abundance of the " terrible" which it reflected. Of this
the reader will be able to form a better estimate as we
proceed in our analysis of this "system of surpassing
energy."
METHODIST EPISCOPACY. J37
It seems that our brother cannot comprehend the dif¬
ference between men and principles. If we express
a personal regard to the members of the Methodist
Episcopal Church, and cannot at the same time enlarge
our throat to the dimensions of " our Episcopacy," we
have a wonderful knack of "twisting." On this prin¬
ciple, how supremely must Paul have despised Peter,^
when at " Antioch he withstood him to .the face, because
he was to be blamed." Personal regard cannot be- in¬
dulged without involving fellowship in all the principles
of the object of it! and therefore the command, requir¬
ing us to " love our enemies" must seal our lips in si¬
lence as to their errors |tnd sins! We cannot expose
these without the charge of " twistification." (Brother
Hamill hars declared, and is determined to maintain his
independence of Webster.)
We were arguing the cdngruity between. Methodist
Episcopacy and English Episcopacy, and not English
monarchy, Brother Hamil-l. True, it is not surprising
that you mistook Episcopacy for monarchy—they are par
nobile fratrum—and the mistake you made is quite
natural and sighifipant.
Our brother plies the weapons furnished in Baptist
NoeFs armory with, singular dexterity. He cannot draw
too frequently on that rich collection of Episoopal facts.
But we opine if "our Episcopacy" had a voice, it would
ring a most plaintive appeal in his ear—"From such a
defence may the. good Lord deliver- mel" Right glad
are we, top, that something can provoke our good bro¬
ther to laugh. We are happy to know that the frown
which lowered ominously upon his brow so recently, is
so soon succeeded by the peals of merriment. That
13$
A DISCUSSION ON
constitutional officers should not "be privates, is provok-
ingly ludicrous! is it?
Brother Hamill represents Us as saying, that " an Es¬
tablished Church in England is more Democratic than
the Methodist Church in the United States.'; The reader
■will remember that we said, if Ite the Rev. E. J. Hamill,
(not we) could prove that We were mistaken in every
point of the analogy jve drew between, the Methodist
Episcopal Church and the Established Episcopal Church
of England, he would succeed in proving that an Estab¬
lished Church in a monarchical government was more
Democratic than the Methodist Episcopal Church in the
free Commonwealth of the United States. The perver¬
sion is so transparent that we really cannot complain
of it.
As to " our evading .the issue, and refusing to retract""
the points specified, we are perfectly willing to " let the
public judge between us." We should be inclined to in¬
dulge in Bro. Hamill's exercise a little, when he speaks
of " evading issues," but we never could laugh on paper.
^ It is complained that we have asserted, that the
" bishops and clergy have imposed articles of faith upon
their people without their consent." Now," if the con-
verso of this is true, it can be proved. Who composed
the General Conference at which the doctrines, discipline,
rules and regulations of the Methodist Episcopal Church
were adopted? The bishops and travelling preachers.
Were" they delegated liy their Churches to do this?
Why, this is not pretended.* The lay membership of
that Church had no more connection with its govern¬
mental, doctrinal, and disciplinary organization, than
the aborigine^ of this continent. And from that time to
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
139
tliis, the bishops and clergy are the source and fountain
of all power, spiritual and temporal, which the system
involves. And it militates not in the slightest degree
against this fact, that persons, in joining the Methodist
Episcopal Church, impliedly submit themselves to its
entire economy. This proves no more for Episcopacy
than it does for Roman Catholicism. The question re¬
curs in each instance:—Was the ©riginal authority
which established that econ'omy a usurped' authority?
If not, "whence did it emanate?"—from God or his,,
Churches? If from God, then the apostles of Method¬
ism were inspired, and the " Discipline" is of equal au¬
thority with the Mew Testament. If from the Churches,
show us the authority, and we are dumb.
There iS' a singular fatality attending Brb. Hamill's
quotations. He has treated us to a couplet from Hudi-
bras, which so beautifully illustrates " our Episcopacy,"
that we cannot resist the temptation to allude to it.
There are those, doubtless,
" Who think religion is intended,
For nothing else hut to be mended."
But who. are they? Certainly not those who have no
ecclesiastical legislatures—who suppose that Christ and
his Apostles did all the legislation necessary for the
churches in all ages—who believe that the constitution,
doctrines, and discipline, of these churches were drafted
by the pen of inspiration, and therefore not likely to be
" mended," by general conferences, or any other ecclesi¬
astical assemblage. Who are they, then, who suppose
that religion maybe "mended?" For seventy-one years,
the General Conference has been tinkering with the
140
A DISCUSSION ON
" Discipline," and np to the last session of that body,
they were still mending it. Some twenty-one changes
were made in it, we learn, at. that time. " Our Episco¬
pacy," however, has been most sacredly guarded through
all these changes.
As we expect to discuss the " Book Concern," with
the " appurtenances thereto annexed," in our next arti¬
cle, we shall decline any response to this part of Bro.
Hamill's letter, for the present.
Episcopacy may^w-ell afford to place her mitre upoh
the heads of such men as McKendree and Bascom, if
for nothing- else to purchase an indemnity from their
merciless castigations. Now dp not throw up your
hands in holy horror, Bro. Hamill, when we say that the
mitre, when placed upon the head, will sometimes have
the mysterious power of paralyzing the tongue. It some¬
times has the effect that your favorite Hudibras ascribes
to money:
" What makes all doctrines plain and clear?
About two hundred pounds a year.
And that which was prov'd true before,
Prov'd false again ?—two hundred more."
Let us now look into Bro. Hamill's "parallels."—In
the first column we find John Wesley's name attached
to two sentences, which we doubt not are genuine,
tholigh we could.wish that he had given us chapter and
verse. The'first is this—"I firmly believe I am a
scriptural Episcopos (bishop), as much as any man in
England.—Johx Wesley," And so every settled pastor
of a Church on earth might have said the same, with
equal propriety. Suppose our mutual friend and
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
141
esteemed brother, Rev. T. Root, pastor of the Presby¬
terian Church in this place, should say that he was as
scriptural a bishop as any man on the American conti¬
nent, would it be legitimate to publish it to the world
that he, Mr. R., "preferred the Episcopal mode of
Church government to any other?"—in the face, too, of
a solemn declaration addressed to a Methodist bishop,
that he would rather be called " a knave, a rascal, or
scoundrel than to be called a bishop?" Again: If in th<§
second sentence, Mr. Wesley uses the term bishop in
the sense in which it was assumed by Messrs. Asbury
and Coke, Bro. Hamill has only succeeded in convicting
his venerable spiritual progenitor of talking two ways,
thus:
" Their father in the Lord may
be called the bishop, overseer of
them all.
John Wesley."
" Men. may call me a knave, a
fool, a rascal, or a scoundrel, and I
am content; bat they shalLnever
by my consent call me a bishop.
John Wesley."
And -our reply to it shall be in the language of Pas¬
cal: "How happy is it to have to do with people that
talk pro. and con.! By this means you furnish me with
all I wanted; which was, to make you confute yourselves."
A New Testament " bishop must be blameless," a
Methodist bishop ought to be bl-ameless.
His second column contains two sentences taken al¬
ternately from the Methodist Discipline, and a Baptist
Confession of Faith, and so arranged as to convey the
impression that the extract from the Baptist Confession
endorses the one from the Methodist. We do not wish to
charge Bro. Hamiil with garbling the extract from the
142
A DISCUSSION ON
Baptist Confession, for this would seem unkind; but let
the reader glance at this extract of our brother, and
read the following, which is the veritable paragraph he
has mutilated: " 9. The way appointed by Christ for
the calling of any person fitted and gifted by the Holy
Spirit, unto the office of bishop, or elder in a Church, is,
that he he chosen thereunto hy the common suffrages of the
Church itself; and solemnly set apart by fasting and
prayer, with imposition of hands by the eldership of the
Church," &c. The election and: consecration *of a Me¬
thodist bishop at a General Conference hy the clergy, and
the election and ordination of a New Testament bishop
by the Church and its eldership, are as far asunder as
the east is from the west. And yet the latter is so mu¬
tilated and tacked on to the other, as if there were a
particle of affinity between them! Surely, surely, it
cannot be the defence of truth which requires a resort
to such expedients as this.
We suppose Mr. Wesley knew what construction to
place upon his own act, and what he was writing when
he addressed' the letter to bishop Asbury, four years after
he and Dr. Coke assumed that title. It is a little singu¬
lar, that when he makes a thrust at " our Episcopacy,''
it is all "occasioned by the misrepresentations of others;"
while in every other respect he is believed and obeyed
almost as implicitly as if he were inspired. It seems
as if there is but one thing oh earth that the Methodist
clergy love better than they do John Wesley—and that
is " our Episcopacy." John must not touch that—if he
does, why "the dear old man" has been miserably
duped.
For the sake of unity in this discussion, we have tried
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
143
to avoid all side issues up to this time. For, this pur¬
pose, we have permitted much that "Brother Hamill has
said vitally affecting our own denomination, to pass
without comment. But a sense of duty constrains us
to depart from this course at this stage of the discus¬
sion—not that we intend to be drawn from the main
question—but by way of a short episode, to vindicate
our own Church polity from some of the wildest and
most puerile attacks "it has ever been our fortune to ob¬
serve. Our brother has set us the example of compar¬
ing the relative claims of Mdthodist and Baptist Church
government to the favorable consideration of American
freemen. We are willing, therefore, that he shall have
all the credit and honor of any victory he may obtain
over us in this respect, and deposit his laurels upon the
altar of " our Episcopacy."
I. The first question that suggests itself in this cpn-
nection is, Who are the legitimate constituency of a
gospel Church? With the new Testament in our hands,
there can be no difficulty in answering this question.
Those who repent of their sins, believe on the Lord
Jesus Christ, and publicly profess that faith by submit¬
ting to the ordinance of baptism. In other words,- those
Who have been "born of {he Spirit—born of God—called
to be saints—-justified—sanetified." We prove this,
first, from the commission—" He that be-lieveth and is
baptized, shall be saved-/'—and secondly,-from.the man¬
ner in which the Apostles themselves understood it—-
" They that gladly received His word were baptized,
and the same day there were added unto them about
three thousand souls." "And the Lord added unto
them daily such as should be saved." "And many of
144
A DISCUSSION ON
the Corinthians hearing, believed, and were baptized,"
&c. &c. The truth is, there is- not a recorded instance
in the New Testament of any person being received
into the Church without furnishing reasonable evidence
that he had exercised " repentance toward God, and
faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ." And that such
and such only were the constituency of all the Churches
planted by the Apostles, is evinced from the additional
fact, that all the Apostolic epistles are addressed to
them as such—" To them that are sanctified in Christ
Jesus, called saints—beloved of God—the faithful in
Christ Jesus—the saints in Christ Jesus—faithful breth¬
ren in Christ—brethren beloved—'-whose faith grew-ex-
ceedingly," &c., &c. No man can doubt that if the
Apostles uniformly applied such terms as these to the
Churches to whom they directed their epistles, they
must have been composed professedly at least, of " new
creatures in Christ Jesus"—converted to God by the
Holy Spirit.
II. The second question to be considered is,. Whether
these persons—these saints—faithful brethren in Christ
Jesus, &c^ are competent to govern themselves. If they are
not, who- on earth are competent to the task? The very
object of the gospel economy is to teach man this lesson,
and to enable him to exemplify it in his relations to the
Church. Solomon says, " He that ruleth his spirit is
greater than he that taketh a city." Is a king' consid¬
ered competent to govern? The Christian is called a
king. Is a priest? He is called also a priest. The
Christian has been aptly called " the .highest style of
man." Is there any other character on earth superior
to him in this respect, to whom he can^apply for guar-
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
145
dianship? As a nation, we have announced the doctrine
to an astonished world, that man is capable of self govern¬
ment; and shall we, in opr ecclesiastical organizations,
nullify that doctrine among ourselves? Shall we pro¬
claim on our civil constitution one thing, and on our
ecclesiastical constitutions the reverse? We repeat, if
Christians are not competent to govern themselves, whq
beneath the canopy of heaven are?
III. The third question suggested is, Whether the
New Testament has inculcated any form of Church go¬
vernment? If it has, we'are capable of discovering it-
if it has not, then'the man of God cannot be thoroughly
furnished to every work. Now, we affirm, that the New
Testament of our Lord Jesus Christ is the consti¬
tution of a gospel Church; that the governmental, doc¬
trinal, and disciplinary economy of the kingdom of
Christ is set forth in that holy volume so luminously,
" that the wayfaring man, though a fool, need not err
therein;" that " the Bible, and the Bible only, is the re¬
ligion" of Christians; and that to affirm differently, is
either to charge folly upon the Triune God, or unfaith¬
fulness upon the.sacred writers; to submit ourselves to
the blind guidance of blind, self-constituted and pre¬
sumptuous priests,, who assume the prerogatives of
God himself; and to land "finally within the crushing
embraces of that spiritual Moloch, the Roman Catholic
hierarchy. And we believe that this holy volume teach¬
es the doctrine that Christians are capable of governing
themselves.
IV. The fourth and last question that we shall now
suggest, arising out of this subject, is the gkeat ques-
tion", over which the conflict of every age since Episco-
13
146
A DISCUSSION ON
pal government has set up its. impious claim against
Church government, has been waged—and it is the ques¬
tion we are now discussing: Do the Churches belong to
the ministry? t>r conversely—Do the ^ministry belong to
the Churches? We give the question this -double form,
so as to present to the reader the whole subject matter
in controversy in a nut-shell. Episcopacy maintains an
absolute proprietorship in the Churches; assumes to es¬
tablish its doctrines and discipline; appoint its pastors;
change their locations at discretion; to receive and sus¬
pend preachers as necessity may require; to oversee the-
spiritual and,,temporal business of the Church. In a
word, it assumes all the attributes, rights, privileges,
and immunities of a supreme irresponsible government.
Now, in opposition to all these extra-judicial and impi¬
ous claims to ecclesiastical powers and prerogatives, we
maintain that the Church of our Lord- Jesus Christ—•
called in the scriptures his "body"'—"the Bride, the
Lamb's wife"—" royal priesthood, holy nation, peculiar
people," &a, has been invested with all. the prerogatives
and powers which her ascended Head has ever confer¬
red upon any agency under heaven. The great Magna
Chatrta of our spiritual commonwealth confers upon her,
under Christ, the sole exetcise of ecclesiastical power.
This is our entrenchment. It has been planned by infi¬
nite Wisdom, built by infinite power, and guarded by in¬
finite goodness. It is a bulwark of strength which has
withstood the lapse of ages and the waste of empires,
the menaces of kings, the assaults of Episcopacy and
thunders of the Vatican. And it will continue to tower
in majesty and glory until Daniel's sublime prophecy
shall be fulfilled: "And the «kingdom and dominion,
METHODSIT EPISCOPACY.
and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole hea¬
vens, shall be given to the people of the saints of the
Most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom,
and all dominions shall serve and obey him/ Into the
hands of such a constituency, it is safe to deposit this
power; for then the highest guaranties that heaven Can
give and that earth can receive are furnished, that it
will be wielded only for good. The truth is, according to
the New Testament, the Church can only exist to
do good. The very moment she perverts the power
committed to her hands, to base and -unworthy purpos¬
es, she ceases to be a Church of Christ, and becomes a
sect and synagogue of Satan. These are some of the
esseptial organic "elements of Baptist Church * polity.
Are they anti-Republican?
We have barely touched upon these topics; but our
space will not allow us to expand them. This we shall
do as soon as the present discussion is disposed of.* - A
single remark will dispose of everything Bro. Hamill
says in regard to. ministers' and deacons' meetings, as¬
sociations, conventions", &C-. In his Secerfd commtmica-
tion, he objected* to such assemblages as these among
the Baptists, because they were merely advisoi-y councils;
in his present one, he objects to one of these meetings,
recently" held in Tuskegee, because its action on a cer¬
tain query, " was the nearest approach to taxation pro¬
per and almost jvithout representation, he has ever
known in any Church in our free country." Air one
* We are engaged in the preparation of a small wort on " Church
Government,-" which we propose offering to the public in a few
months. S. H.
148
A DISCUSSION ON
time they are merely advisory councils; at another, they
pass a "decree," to which, -if the Churches submit, they
"bear off the palm fro.m all, of docility and submission
to the powers that be!" Rathef hard pressed for "ar¬
gument to answer argument." Who. is "twisting"?'* And
what- do-you think, reader; was this terrible crime-
against " our free country?" First: A query was sug¬
gested by a certain brother, a private member, to this
effect? What is the best method of raising the funds to
de/ray the necessary expenses of the Church? The an¬
swer was, th,at each man ought 4o pay in proportion to
his worth, according to the Divine rule: "Upon the first
day bf the week, let eVery one of you lay by him in
store? as God has prospered him, that there be no gather¬
ings when I come."—1st Cor. xvi. 2. Second: That covet-
eousness was idolatry, and that, in the judgment of that
meeting, no idolator ought to be retained in the Church.
What a monstrous offence this! How shocking to the
delicate sensibilities pf> our brother? What profound
concern does he manifest for the honor of his country?
All this, too, the mere expressiofl of fcan opinion by a vo¬
luntary meeting! A privilege guarantied to and exer¬
cised by every public meeting of the citizens of this free
qountry, upon all subjects of common interest.
We suppose that we must inform brother Hamill that
all forms of government may be abused, not excepting
Democracies. It is a significant fact, that the very argur
ments he is using against "the Baptist polity, are the identical
arguments which monarchists have always used against popu¬
lar government. He has picked up a few cases in our
histories, in which, under the strong excitement of some
vexed question, a few of our Churches have abused their
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
149
power, and turns these against us, when he himself will
admit that "they are the exceptions and not the rule;
just as the apologists for royalty catch up those occa¬
sional outbreaks, particularly in our large cities, and
construe them into arguments against Republicanism.
"We challenge Brother Hamill to show any strifes in the
Baptist Churches, more dishonorable to the Christian
flame, or more destructive of human rights, than those
which agitated the Methodist Episcopal Church -in 1T98
—1824; '28, and '44—and then, growing out Of the last,
the humiliating- spectacle of the Methodist Episcopal
Church, South; versiis the Methodist Episoopal Church,
North, before the United States Court in New York, in
reference to the "mammoli of unrighteousness," in the
famous Book Concern lawsuit. A pretty fair evidence
this, that Episcopacy eannot meet every emergency it
may preeipitate upon itself.
Brother Hamill maintains, that without the vote of the
laity, none can be received into the itinerancy, or into
the Church. In the Discipline, are the following ques •
tions and answers:
Qmst. 1. How is a preacher to be received?
Ans. 1. By the Annual Conference. 2. In the interval
of a "Conference, by -a bishop, or the presiding elder of
the district, until the sitting of the Conference,—p. 3T.
Again:
Quest. 1. What are the duties of the elder, deacon,-or
preacher, who has the especial charge of a circuit?
Ans. 4. To appoint all the leaders, and change them
when he sees it necessary. 5. TO RECEIVE, TRY, AND
EXPEL members, according to the form of the Dis¬
cipline,
150
A DISCUSSION ON
Now, Brother Hamill tells us one thing, the Discip¬
line tells us the very reverse. And moreover we have
been present, time &nd again, at the reception of mem¬
bers into the Methodist Episcopal Church, and never
have we heard the concurrence of the Church asked in
a single instance. Perhaps this part of the Discipline
has been "mended."
Father Mercer's wish in regard to a general meeting
of the ministers of Georgia, was certainly right and
proper. But that the expression of such a wish should
ever have been metamorphosed in a desire for a " Con¬
ference Episcopacy," we are sure never could have en¬
tered the head of any other person except, a Methodist
clergyman. A voluntary Conference of ministers, for
mutual edification and spiritual improvement, is quife a
different thing from an ecclesiastical body assembled to
enact, expound, and enforce laws upon the Churches.
We had intended to compare^the constitution.of Me¬
thodist Episcopacy with the constitution of the United
States, after the example of our brother; but our co¬
lumns are filled, and we are obliged to defer it, for
the present. Justice to our correspondents requires
that we shall give at least every other issue to their
communications. We think we shall be able to make,
this part of the subject interesting in some respects.
As our brother is still haunted by that hydra-headed
monster among the Baptists, "close communion," and as
he still seems to consider that it has much, to do in re¬
flecting light upon the "Democratic element," in "our
Episcopacy," we suppose we must devote a single pa¬
ragraph to the elucidation of that subject. Our position
is, that "the Baptists act, not only upon divine authority,
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
151
but also upon a principle adopted by every denomina¬
tion of Christians on earth, so fas as we know. * That
principle is, that Baptism is an indispensable pre-requisite to
sacramental communion. In the Methodist Discipline,
pages 86-81, the following question and answer occurs:
•Quest. How shall we prevent improper persons from
insinuating themselves into the Church?
Ans, 1- Let none be received into-the Church until
they are recommended by a leader with whbm they have
met at least six months on trial; ani? have been baptized,
Probationers may be allowed to commune, " provided
they have been baptized," says Kemington, who was
twenty years an elder in that Church, " and not with¬
out." And with this agrees " Hibbiard'on Baptism," a
work endorsed by the General Conference of the Me¬
thodist- Episcopal Church, and recognized as a text-took
for young ministers, for the third year in their course of
study. On page 114, he says: 4<Itis but just to re¬
mark that in one principle -the Baptist and Pedo-baptist
Churches agree. They both agree in.rejecting from
communion at the table ©f the Lord, and jn denying the
rights of Church fellowship to all who have not been
baptized. Valid baptism they consider as essential to
constitute visible Churchy membership.* This -anso we
hold. The only question, then, that here divides us is,
what is essential to valid baptism?" The conclusion, then,
is inevitable, if we are to believe their own standard au¬
thors,. that the, Methodist Episcopal Church hold that
baptism is a pre-requisite to the Lord's supper, and the
door of admission into the Church. If Bro. Hamill will
turn to the 213th page of Hall's Works, a volume from
which he has often quoted, and with which he seems
152
A DISCUSSION ON
peculiarly charmed, he will receive the following rebuke
from the "eloquent open-communion'Baptist:" "Let it be
admitted that baptism is, under all circumstances, a
necessary condition of Church fellowship, and it is imposj
sible for the Baptists to act otherwise. The recollection
of this may suffice to rebut the ridicule and silence the
clamor of those who loudly condemn the Baptists for a
proceeding which, were they but to change their opinion
on the subject of baptism, their own principles* would
compel them to adopt. They both eoncur in a common
principle, from which the* practice deenled so offensive
is the necessary result. Considered as 'an argumeritvm
ad hominem, or an appeal* to the avowed principles of our
opponents, this\easoning maybe sufficient to shield us
from that severity of reproach to which" we are often ex4
posed, nor ought we to be censured for acting upon a
system (principle?) which is sanctioned by our -accus¬
ers." With what sincerity can he, or indeed the Pedo-
baptists generally, use the arguments of Robert Hall
oh the communion question; they all, as denominations,
without exception, when equally with Baptists, repudi¬
ate his premises? Nq, Brother Hamill, you have cer*
tainly too much perception not to see that the legitimate
question at issue between Baptists and Pedo-baptists,
relates to baptism, and not to sacramental communion.
It is close baptism, not close communion.
Our brother takes leave of us this time rather abrupt¬
ly. A slight frown gathered upon his brow! Don't be
crusty, Brother Hamill. If you have succeeded in
" answering argument with argument," you ought to
have quit in a better humor. We are not conscious of
having used reproachful or insulting language to him.
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
153
And as we are an alien, and have never been accus¬
tomed to "a will omnipotent in the premises," we an¬
swer his clerical command of " silence!"—" Pardon us
if we know no such right, if we comprehend no such
privilege!"
Will Brother Hamill please inform us distinctly, whe¬
ther the charge of falsehood in his last communication
was intended to refer to the fads we "had alleged
against Methodism" up to the time of the writing of his
article, and which \fre specified in ou£ .answer; or whe¬
ther he intended it to refer to the positions in the ar¬
ticle from the "Watchman?" We are actuated by the
kindest of feelings and the best of motives in making
this request.
June 21st, 1855.
154
> DISCUSSION ON
LETTER V..
METHODISM."
THE STRIKING ANALOGY BETWEEN THE METHODIST CHURCH GOV¬
ERNMENT AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
Methodism never connected with the State; Bro. Henderson's just
denunciation of persecution; points of agreement; Doctrine of
the fathers of Trent rejected; Fuller's view of the extent of pas¬
toral care; A bold admission; True credentials; A few drops or
a whole pond of water insufficient to regenerate; Bro. Hender¬
son's analysis of the elements of a Church amended; The great
Head of the Church legislates for her, and calls her offioers; Ex¬
ercise of reason not superseded; Conventions and creeds necessary;
The absence of connectionalism the cause of disorder in the Bap¬
tist Church; Exceedingly powerful advice; Agreement with Rob't
Hall; A new style of logic; The faith of Methodism not mendeil;
Methodism has a single grand platform of doctrines; The Baptist
Church may have ten thousand varying creeds, and, therefpre,-
cannot with accuracy be styled The Baptist Church; The Hiwas-
see Baptist Association; Baptist Churches have no legislative
representatives at all; Their practice better than their theory;
Mr. Wesley did prefer the Episcopal mode of Church government;
Unique reasoning; Mercer favors a platform similar to that of
Methodism; An interior view of the trial of members; The chal¬
lenge to publish a deed refused; Power of bishops in civil mat¬
ters; The generosity of the General Conference in making bishops
of its enemies; Chief business of an Annual or General Confer¬
ence; Why should the laity act in two Church courts upon the
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
155
same cases? Distinction between tbe act of distributing minis¬
ters and other Church business; Baptist itinerancy again; A Geor¬
gia Baptist Conference of ministers; Father1 Mercer; Church re¬
movals like removals by the President; Bishop Hamline's view
excessively Republican; A chance for a pretty burst of indig¬
nation.
analogy.
Analogy between the Methodist Church government and the United
States government, shown in many particulars; Consistency would
require the. opposers of Methodism to seek the destruction of our
civil Republic; Other Baptist disorder^; Melancholy spectacle;
Popery in the Berlin Baptist Church, as their poets say; Opposi¬
tion preaching; Explanation; glaring errors; Baptist piety will
do good in spite of its defective government; Concession.
" Walk About Zion. and gp round abont her; tell the towers thereof; mark ye well
her bulwarks; consider hea palaces; that ye may tell it to the generation following."—
Psalms.
" I speak as to wise men, judge ye what I say."
Brother Henderson:
As Methodism has never for a moment been connect¬
ed with the State, in any land; not even for a period as
brief as the mad sway of that " most eminent Baptist,
Thomas Muncer" or as the 'wild and licentious tyranny
of John Matthias, and John Bocold of Leyden: and as
she has therefore, never in a single instance, lent her¬
self to any form of civil government, as an instrument
of oppression, I maj freely leaye to your ready pen, the
task of portraying the evils of the union of Church and
State; and of denouncing with just severity the cr-uel
persecutions, rai'sed from time to time, by Church au¬
thorities, under the sanction of the State.'—My only aim
will be, to demonstrate the claims of Methodism to Be-
publicanism of the highest excellence.
156
A DISCUSSION ON
I can cordially endorse all you have to say upon the
value of controversy, when conducted fairly, amicably,
and in a Christian spirit. I agree with you still further
in the strongest condemnation of any Episcopacy, which
claims to be a third order in the ministry of Divine
right, in which alone is vested the right of ordination,
and of government in the Church, and without which
third order, as some sects contend, there were no Church
at all, even though the incumbents of this third order,
falsely called apostolic, were heretical in doctrine, and
impious in life; as the Tridentine fathers affirmed, that
" a bishop might become a priest of Jupiter, or a priest
of Baal, and still be a priest of Jesus Christ." (Camp.
Eccles. Lects.) Such assumptions I regard as anti-
Christian, and as the very corner-stone of the Papal
hierarchy.
Methodists do not claim ordination from a higher
source than a presbyter, called also in the Scriptures, a
bishop; which latter appellation with us is, by custom
only and not by divine appointment, restricted to the
designation of him whom we elect to be the primus inter
pares—first among equals; like the Angel of the Church
of Ephesus, who was first among the associate bishops
of Ephesus. In this sort of presidency or moderator-
ship, involving' in a modified sense, what Paul had—
" the care of all the Churches"—there can be nothing in
conflict with the qualifications of a bishop, as described
in the Bible. Your great Fuller says, " Nov would the
influence of tlie first missionaries be confined to a single
congregation, but by a kind of parental authority,
would extend to all the societies that might be raised
by means of their labors."—(Bap. Lib. vol. iii. p. 330.)
METHODIST EPISCOPACY
15T
I will make the still bolder admission, that I do not
care to claim a place even in a succession of Presbyte-
rial ordinations, running back to apostolic times: for
all successions at the hands of men, have come to us
through corrupt channels. Give me direct succession
from heaven, by the Spirit's call, entitling me to minis¬
terial credentials; and then, as a matter of order and
expediency merely, let it be acknowledged by the laity,
and endorsed fey a, prayerful imposition of hands of holy
brethren.
I do concur with you heartily also, in rejecting
the absurd doctrine, that a few drops of water, or even
a whole pond of water, can, by the sprinkling or the
immersion, either of an infant, or an adult, perform
the work uniformly ascribed to the agency of the Holy
Spirit." Thus far I suppose we are of one mind.
Your analysis of the elements of a Church, is partially
correct, but may need some emendation. Let us see.—•
What is a Church? Ans.: " A company of men having
the form, and seeking the power of godliness, united to
help each other to work out their ?own salvation."
Secondly: Are they competent to govern themselves?
Ans.: They are, within certain limitations: First, that
Christ alone can frame their fundamental-laws; and
next, that the spirit of God shall choPse .their ministers
or overseers j but thede things being done for them by
the great Head of the Church (for in these things Church
government is essentially different from civil govern¬
ment), they may then judge who are called fey Christ
to the holy office—to hear some sort of rule in ■ the
Church of God, as Paul saith, " Kemember them which
have the rule over you, who Have spoken unto you the
14
158
A DISCUSSION ON
word of God,—and may do also whatever else is neces¬
sary to good government. Thirdly; Has the New Tes¬
tament inculcated any form of Church government?
Ans.: ."The Holy Scriptures contain all things necessary
to salvation," yet they do not supersede the necessity
for the legitimate exercise of reason; nor do they go
into detail to such an extent, as to make void the func¬
tions of associations, conferences, synods, and conven¬
tions ; and in view of the brevity of the Scriptures, the
variety of mental character, the fallibility even of good
men, and the propriety of securing harmony of action,
the common sense of all ages has dictated the necessity
of drawing up symbols of faith, called creeds, articles,
or confessions of faith, to serve as points of union among
Christians, and as defences against the encroachments
of error. Fourthly: Do the Churches belong to the
ministry, or the ministry to the Churches? Ans.:
Neither; .but both if faithful, to the Lord, who placed
those, called by His Spirit to the ministry, " over us in
the Lord."—Eph. I, v. 13.
A government of this description is certainly in no
wise anti-Republican; nevertheless, to that form in
which these elements exist in the Baptist Church, there
is wanting that beautiful connectionalism, with its
checks and balances, which makes Methodism so close
an imitation of our civil Republic. It is this want of
government, properly so called, which renders the Bap¬
tist Church so unlike our federal government, and which
produced the terrible disorders in your Georgia and Ala¬
bama Churches, referred to in ,my last communication.
Your laihe apology for those disorders; for the wretch¬
ed anarchical legislation lamented byyour own historian;
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
159
for the existence of that "infernal spirit which gets in¬
to every Baptist community, however small," if your
last Convention is correct; and for the exceedingly power¬
ful advice given in your Tuskegee legislation on taxa¬
tion ; which advice threatens exclusion against any of
your members who dare refuse such inquisitorial tax,
I think it unnecessary to disturb. I shall not tear away
that fig-le£|i concealment of your nakedness.
I am happy to inform you., furthermore, that I agree
with the great Robert Hall upon the question of close
communion; I concur with him most heartily, in Yoth
his premises, and conclusion. Whenever I can accredit
any man as a true minister of Christ, in the highest
functions of the ministry, namely, preaching the gospel
of Christ, I will freely invite him to partake of the Lord's
Bupper with me, even were he baptized by a Papist, or
never baptized at all. I kpow of no Methodist minister
who would be guilty of the absurd inconsistency of re¬
pelling, on the ground of baptism, whether valid or not,
from the Lord's tablq, one whom he himself acknow¬
ledged as a minister of Jesus Christ.
You still cling fondly to the allegation, that in our
free land, where every one may worship God under his
own vine and fig tree, " we impose articles of faith upon
our people without their consent; if it is not so, the con¬
verse can be proved," namely, " the people frame them."
Is is true, that if the people do not frame articles of
faith, these articles are imposed on them without their
consent, when they voluntarily subscribe to them? ! 1
This is sheer nonsense. Did preachers manufacture
them? By no means;' for we acknowledge none but
Christ as the legislator of the Christian Church; and
160
A DISCUSSION ON
both preachers and people believe God himself revealed
these doctrines in his word. This proving of the con¬
verse, is a style of logic peculiarly your own. Hedge,
Blair, Whateley, and other logicians, had not discovered
that if a particular proposition be not true, the converse
must be true. It ia unquestionably Hendersonian, and
worthy of a copyright. Look at its application to cur-
. rent topics. It is a very hot day, sir." " No, sir, it is
only moderately-warm for the season." Well, sir, if it
is not a very hot day, the converse must be true—it is a
very cold day." Most lucid logic! Our fathers taught
that the Holy Scriptures contained all things necessary
to salvation (Dis.); when they preached the word, our
people, like the Bereans, searched the Scriptures to see
whether these things were so; and the word of the Lord
was glorified in the voluntary addition to our Church of
the multitudes who would enjoy this salvation; and both
bishops and people have failed to discover, during the
existence of American Methodism, any necessity for
mending our articles of faith.
It is true, the Methodist Church, like the Presbyterian
and other Churches, has but a single grand platform of
doctrines for our entire membership; one God, one faith,
one baptism into Christ's death, (not into his burial, for
his burial was a mere circumstance, in no wise essen¬
tial to the atonement.) We do not, therefore, upon the
organization of every Church, or every Conference, call
upon our members to form a new set of articles of faith;
if we did, the articles thus framed might be eighteen
centuries too-late; and then our twelve thousand Me¬
thodist Churches might have as many varying creeds,
agreeing in some points, and differing in others, as
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
161
there are Churches. In that event, it would he as great
a fallacy to style these thousands of our Churches, with
their varying creeds, the Methodist Church, as it is to
give the appellative which denotes unity, namely, the
Baptist Church, to the ten thousand Churches, having
frequently dissimilar creeds, which agree with you upon
questions of baptism. Hence, in Strictness of speech,
there can be no such thing as the Baptist Church; un¬
less it be some particular society claiming that title;
for common sense teaches, that "when thousands of
Churches severally try their still at creed-making, and
manufacturing so many distinct confessions of faith,-
they cannot be one Church, unless difference and unity
mean the same thing. This is the rather true, when
we consider that every one of these Churches claims
independent jurisdiction in every respect, as the mi¬
nutes of the last Hiwassee Baptist Association, N. C.,
in the following language testify: " We have no high-
sounding titles, as pope,- cardinals, ruling or presiding
elders, synods, assemblies,, or conferences, to hear and
decide upon appeals, and to pass laws for the govern¬
ment of the Church. We meet together for mutual com¬
fort and edification, not to decide upon appeals, nor to
make laws."—Carolina Baptist, June 6th.
Now, I humbly submit it to your good judgment,
whether the members of numerous Churches thus go¬
verned, with their several distinctive peculiarities, and
without any law-making department, properly so called,
for the aggregate Churches, and hence, of course, with¬
out any representatives at all, whether lay or clerical,
invested with legislative power, can with any accuracy
be styled the Baptist Church? I think not. I submit
162
A DISCUSSION ON
also, that where there is no legislature—and your own.
authorities tell us you have none-^-there can be no le¬
gislative representatives; so that after all your invec¬
tives against our representation, it turns out, that in
your anomalous system, neither your ministry nor your
people have any representation at all.
Nevertheless, I frankly admit the practice of your
Churches is better than your theory. Th.e common
sense of your people ignores the theory of your govern¬
ment, and by extra legislative and extra judicial acts,
secures in ordinary cases the benefits of government.
But in all unusual or difficult cases, your Churches are
utterly at fault; and the good and wise among-you, like
Father Mercer, of Georgia, and the Baptist historian,
Holcombe, of Alabama, bewail in hopeless bitterness
the sad dissensions, distractions, divisions, anarchy and
despotic acts of legislation of your people. We have
no desire to frame the Methodist Church government
after the pattern of this system of anarchy and confu¬
sion, inaccurately styled Baptist Church Government.
It is by far' too much unlike our federal government, to
suit the Republican spirit of Methodism.
You have charged our bishops with duplicity,in affirm¬
ing that Mr. Wesley preferred the Episcopal mode of
Church government to any other. Your proof is, his
letter to Mr. Asbury, objecting to the title of bishop.
I showed you that even the Baptist Discipline recog¬
nizes the title of bishop, and that Mr. Wesley consider¬
ed it a scriptural synonym for presbyter, though he pre¬
ferred we should not use it, because it had been un¬
righteously appropriated by prelacy, from which our
brethren reclaimed it, and restored it to its original
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
163
sense—an act commended • in* the Life of Wesley, by
Moore, who first published the much misrepresented
Asbury letter. Mr. Wesley did prefer the Episcopal
mode of Church government. The Minutes of the Me¬
thodist Episcopal Church in America, were published
six months after their adoption, at Mr. Wesley's press,
and under his eye; and Dr. Coke .defended them in Mr.
Wesley's presence, .and without contradiction, on the
ground that he had done nothing without the direction
of Mr. Wesley; and for four years we were styled a
Methodist Episcopal Church, before Mr. Wesley reprov¬
ed Asbury for allowing himself to be called bishop.—
(Stevens' Church Polity, p. 100.) So much for garbling
our Church documents.
I have informed you that every itinerant is constitut¬
ed such by two distinct acts of the members, and that
the suffrages of the laity are indispensable to every
Church act, in every one of the thousands of our Churches;
and that no bishop, nor even preacher in charge, can so
much as vote in the trial of akmember. You tell us the
Discipline says the reverse of this; that the preacher is
received by the Annual Conference, &c. Very true,
sir; the Annual Conference does receive preachers. It
would be singular -Republicanism which could force
them to appoint preachers to the pastorate whom they
thought unworthy. But then, if you were better ac¬
quainted with our Discipline, you would learn that it
requires candidates for the itinerancy to be licensed
first by the people, and then recommended by the Quar¬
terly Conference; without which license and recom¬
mendation, , the Conference can receive none into the
itinerancy. How sadly yoq, have mistaken the charac-
164
A DISCUSSION ON
ter of our entire system. Your reverse logic is of a
piece with your converse logic. Unique specimens of
reasoning.
Let your own Mercer instruct you into the propriety
of our course. " The ministry is to ministers, what the
Church is to common brethren; and a. man migbt as
soon be introduced into the fellowship of the Church
without being received by the members of the Church,
as any one Can be brought into the fellowship of the
ministry without being received by the ministry."—Me--
moirs, p. 453. Again: he fixes the minimum number
who may constitute a Church/ at seven; and then, the
ministerial office being elective, he says, " In that ease,
not seven, but four against "three, and these three may
be the strength of the Church, appoint one of them¬
selves to the office of gospel minister. Is it possible
that such an -appointment can give to any one an au¬
thoritative claim on all Churches and ministers, to their
cordial acceptance and brotherly companionship? Be¬
sides the door it would throw open to vile speculation,
and base electioneering. Once establish the rule, that the
Church has the only and sole authority to induct into
the ministerial offide, and that it is elective, and you have
opened the flood-gates to error, and exposed the Church
to feuds and destruction."—.(p. 454.) Well spoken,
Brother Mercer, though you have come upon the plat¬
form of Methodism to utter it.
Our ministers.do summon offenders to trial; still an
interior view of our Discipline would show you that we
try them by members only. As for what may or
may not have heard of the concurrence of members,
asked on receiving membars, I cannot answer; but I
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
165
presume you will not think I got up a case of the recep¬
tion of fourteen members into full connection by vote
of the Church, for your special benefit, and in anticipa¬
tion of your denial of that custom only a few days after.
You will understand Methodism better before I have
done with you.
Your refusal to meet my challenge for the'publication
of the deed of any Methodist Church in the land, I take
as a silent abandonment of your position on the pro¬
perty question; and I await patiently for your denoue¬
ment of the inystery of the Book Concern.
With regard to the power of our bishops to control
the suffrages of our people in civil affairs, I think you
, are well enough acquainted with Methodists to be as¬
sured, that if our bishops could be found silly enough to
attempt such control, they would not only meet with
moral resistance, but in many instances would' be for¬
cibly convinced of their error by very striking argu¬
ments.
Our venerable bishops McKendree and Bascom, who
had spoken so freely upon questions of Church govern¬
ment, you insinuate, were bribed into silence by elec¬
tion to the ^Episcopal office. The members of Confer¬
ence who elected them inust have been of a happy
temperament indeed, to h'ave rewarded those who
" mercilessly castigated " them with the highest honors*
in their gift. "Would your Convention do likewise?
Seriously, the insinuation is utterly unworthy of you.
You cannot possibly credit it yourself. If you duly
consider the Scripture, tf With what measure you mete
it shall be measured to you again," you will be more
chary in future, of your .flings at the memory of the holy
dead.
166
A DISCUSSION ON
Upon a careful consideration of the reasons you have
offered to pfove Methodism anti-Republican, I find your
proofs evince an entire misapprehension of Methodism.
You have created a man of straw, and battled valiantly
with your own misconceptions of our system. My prin¬
cipal business, therefore, in this discussion, has been to
rectify, your mistakes concerning- us. 1 have, already in¬
formed you that almost all the business of your ii-regularly
constituted Conventionsr is transacted in our system, by side-
societies; such as Education, Tract, Missionary Societies, and
Boards of Finance; in all of which we have as much lay dele¬
gation, and lay management, as you could ask for; and that
in everything-, in which the laity is equally concerned
with the ministry, it is the genius of Methodism to de¬
light in lay co-operation, But in the Annual and Gen¬
eral Conferences, whose chief business is the examina¬
tion and reception cf ministers, and their distribution
on the itinerant • plan—a plan which you yourself have
highly commended—and the frariiing of laws regulating
that reception and distribution, we admit no lay dele¬
gation, save in the financial and other enterprises spe¬
cified. Why should we have lay delegates to examine and re¬
ceive ministers in Conference, when lay members have already
acted on the very same cases in their respective Church courts,
and the only candidates who can apply for admission
into the itinerancy, have come up upon the recommen¬
dation of the laity?
And with reference to the appointment of these min¬
isters to their several fields of labor, I have already
shown you, that if you had a hundred Baptist itinerant
ministers assembled in Convention, to be scattered to
the four winds upon a self-sacrificing mission, you could
METHODIST EPISCOPACY. l6t
milker think it just, nor expedient, nor Republican, that a Bap¬
tist layman should arise upon the floor of the Convention, and
command every one of these hundred.Baptis t itinerants to strike
their tents and go whithersoever he ordered them, while he him¬
self submitted to no such sacrifices, and quietly returned to his
secular pursuits at home. Such Republicanism would be
a bitter pill to these supposed Baptist itinerants; they
would soon come to the conclusion, that they knew no
such rights, and comprehended no such privileges. You
have been very careful * not to notice this distinction,
which I have drawn between .the act of distributing
ministers upon the itinerant plan, and the support of
other grand Church schemes; the first illustrated in the
case of the supposed Baptist itinerants, and the second
in Missionary, Financial, and other Boards, which at¬
tend to business like that of your Conventions, and in
which, there is as much lay management with us, if not
more, than you can possibly boast of in your system.
You have gone even farther than we have in calling
ministers' meetings without any lay delegation what¬
ever; for you Rave done this, without the reason which
exists among us for doing it, namely, the appointment
of ministers to their field of labor, in which none should
have a voice but those who submit to like sacrifices.
You have oalled ministers' meetings, as Father Mercer
informs us, without any business of this sort to be
brought before them, and only, according to Mercer,
" to prevent distracting controversies, and to keep the
beauty of the Church from being marred." .
Your remark that, this was only a wish of Father Mer¬
cer, shows that you are not well posted up in the his¬
tory of Georgia Baptists. It was not merely a wish; on
168
A DISCUSSION ON
the contrary, such a ministers' meeting was actually
organized in Eatonton, in October, 1888, but it was
found difficult to secure a general attendance, and in
two or three years it languished into non-existence.
Memoirs, page 265. Father Mercer lamented its discon¬
tinuance, and affirmed it was because " they were turned
every one to his own way, and that young ministers have
had the rearing of themselves in the churches, and have
been so lon£ accustomed to direct their own course,
that it will be hard to bring them to submit to the dis¬
cipline of a ministerial union." I find also upon a care¬
ful reading of the History of the Alabama Baptist, page
1-24, that when you plan a system of itinerancy upon a
small scale, your ministers associate themselves for the
work, and make among themselves their own arrange¬
ments, for the supply of the given field with itinerant
labor. If, therefore, a Conference of ministers transact¬
ing business in which none but themselves are equally
interested, and that, too, with a lay board of finance
added to it, be anti-Republican, how much more anti-
Republican must a Conference of Baptist ministers be,
who are without lay delegation, and who have no itine¬
rant business to justify their exclusiveness. "Take
the beam out of thine own eye," &c.
You have rejoiced over your quotation from Bishop
Hamline, as one that findeth great spoil. What a pity
to spoil your pretty1 piece of fun! Mr. Hamline said,
" The class feader becomes unpopular and the preacher
removes him; the itinerant preacher is not useful in his
charge, and the bishop or presiding elder deposes him
from his charge or pastoral office, and makes him an
assistant. The presiding elder impairs his usefulness
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
169
on a district, not by gross malfeasance, but by a slight
misfeasance, or oftener still because he is not popular, and
the bishop removes'him to a circuit."
In all these instances, the removal is Summary, with¬
out trial; it is for no crime, and generally for no misde¬
meanor, but for being unacceptable. These removals are
by a sole agent whose will is omnipotent in the premi¬
ses, &c. Do you think Brother Henderson, that in these
removals, " the very existence of the Church is utterly
ignored?"
Why, sir, Bishop Hamline tells us, they are made be¬
cause of eccentricity, undcceplabiUty or unpopularity, with
the Church; and hence, in every instance specified by
him, according to the wish of the Church, which is cer¬
tainly sufficiently Republican. But further, do you:
know the design of Mr. Hamline's speech? the grand
object for which it was made? If not, I will tell you
then: it was to prove that the General Conference
could remove every one of our bishops from office if it
saw proper, without any crime, or misdemeanor what¬
ever, and even without accusation or trial, and summa¬
rily—that the authority of the Conference over the
bishops, was omnipotent.
In the very next paragraph to that quoted by you,
Mr. Hamline -says: "I shall argue our authority to de¬
pose a bishop ■summarily, for improprieties morally
innocent, which embarrass the exercise of his functions."
Debates, p. 129. The conference 'acting on these prin¬
ciples, suspended Bishop Andrew. Is it possible that
an Episcopacy which may be removed summarily, with¬
out trial or the slightest impeachment of moral charac¬
ter, can be anti-Republicanl!! You are particularly un-
15
170
A discussion on
fortunate in- quoting Mr. Hamline's speech, in support
of your groundless allegation. If the sentiments of that
speech be true, we are excessively Republican, and .our
bishops are more perfectly shorn of. power than any
other ministers in our body. Moreover, had you pos¬
sessed a copy of that speech, and not gotten it at second
hand, you would have better understood the nature of
the removals he speaks of—that they do not affect in
the smallest degree the Christian or ministerial rights or
functions of the party removed. He says: "My mind,
sir (if not my words), has all along distinguished be¬
tween orders and office." The summary removals which
I have noticed, are from office, not from the ministry.
In regard to ordained preachers, these two rules will
hold:
First: they cannot be expelled from the ministry sum¬
marily, but must have a trial in due form. Secondly:
they cannot be expelled for improper conduct, but only
for a crime forbidden in the word of God. These rules,
with -few exceptions, will apply to private members;
they cannot .usually be expelled from the Church with¬
out trial, or the offer Of trial; (I add, too, by a jury of
their peers) nor for improper conduct.
The mistaken view you have taken of Mr. Hamline's
speech, and the blunder you oommitted in referring to
it, will punish you justly for your readiness to take our
Church documents in a garbled form, from the hands of
our enemies. The fact that the summary removals are
not from the ministry, will extinguish your momeptary
joy, and leave only a mortifying consciousness of ignor¬
ance of our system. The removals, then, which you
imagined to be so utterly anti-Republican, are exactly
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
171
similar to the frequent removals made by the President
of the United States, when he transfers summarily; and
without trial, the captain of one naval vessel to the
command of another, or the general of one division of
the army'to the command of another division.
Bishop Andrew might still.have preached the gospel,
administered the sacraments, or presided over a Church
or district, in perfect accordance with the wish of the
General Conference which suspended him from the Epis¬
copal office. His orders were not touched; it was only
his permanent moderatorship over the Conferences
which was affected "by the suspension.
The President of the United States does immensely
more of this work of summarily removing from office;
and his removals affect the parties removed to a vastly
greater extent, in both p'owers and emoluments. The
executive officers of our government, under the Presi¬
dent, are not supposed to be divinely called to their
office, and their removal utterly extinguishes their of¬
ficial powers—as in the removal of the Cabinet, and
Custom House officers, governors of territories, and the
recall of ambassadors. -These removals do not, how¬
ever, impair their rights of citizenship. But in the
Church, the ministers thereof are called by the Spirit of
God, to their sacred work; hence, nothing but crime
can subject them to be divested by any Church power
whatever, of their ministerial prerogatives. Can you
not favor us with a pretty burst of indignation at the
utterly anti-Republican right of*summary removal with¬
out trial, accusation, or appeal, by the President of the
United States. Do " look it sternly in the face," and try
a discussion on
your chivalry on this despotic assumption, " growing
up under the boughs of tbe tree of liberty 1" ha! ha! ha!
Your companion in arms, Mr. Boss, of Brownlow Ke-
view notoriety, spems to have fallen into the same ditch.
I leave you to sympathize with himr and when he again
pronounces Methodism Anti-Christ, I will tell him Bro.
Henderson says,.not so, sir; "Methodists love our com¬
mon Lord, and have exhibited a zeal in his cause (and
of course, not the cause of Anti-Christ) worthy of all
praise." "When your nerves recover from the shock
they have received at the idea of summary removal from
office, for unacceptability to the people, by an agent
whose will is omnipotent in the premises: albeit, he
himself is subject to a like removal, if he use this power
improperly, you will see in this feature of the govern¬
ment of Methodism, a striking likeness to that feature
in cur civil government, which reposes similar power,
but to a vastly greater extent, in the President of the
United States.
analogy.
I again repeat, sir, there are differences, such as I
have before shown, between Church government and
civil government; namely, that in the Church, Christ is
the sole legislator; Christ calls tbe ministry to their
sacred office; the Church can inflict no civil pains and
penalties whatever; and in the Methodist Church, at
least, if not in the Baptist Church, the members can
withdraw at pleasure. Within these limitations, the
government of the Methodist Church is as perfect a mo¬
del of our civil government,. as any Church on the Ame-
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
rican continent can possibly be, and far more perfectly
like the government of the United States than youi*
Church government. Look at the points of resemblance.
Everywhere with us, the right of trial by jury is acknow¬
ledged. In our Confereiices, the Democratic principle'
is established, that none* should make laws "but those
who are* themselves subject to them; but that in all
things in which the laity are equally Interested with
the ministry, namely, in all our grand financial and
other enterprises, they have equal suffrage and manage¬
ment. The Itinerancy is constituted by two distinct
acts of the membership, who' first pass upon the quali¬
fications of the candidates for the itinerancy, before the
Conference can receive them; and then the itinerancy,
like our legislatures or Congress, which' elect their
Speakers or President of Senates, elects its own officers.
Our State legislature elects its Senators; So, also, does
our Annual Conference its members of the General Con¬
ference. The Senate of the United States confirms the
nominations of the • President to the Cabinet, to the
Courts of Europe, and, most important of all, the nom¬
inations to a lifetime office in the Supreme Courts of the
land—the Judiciary of the United 'States. And these
officers in turn appoint their subalterns, until, often, the
chain of appointments-is removed several links from the
people. So, also, our General Conference appoints our
bishops and editors; only that in the Methodist Church
government, our appointments are not carried by many
links so far from our people as in the civil government.
The analogy between the two governments, within the
limitations specified, is'the closest, perhaps, that ever
existed in our free country. If jh>u charge such a go-
A DISCUSSION ON
vernment with being anti-Republican, consistency, it
Seems to me, would demand of you that you should de¬
vote your talents to the destruction of our civil govern¬
ment, of which the government of Methodism is so per¬
fect a model.
With reference to the disorders" in the Methodist
Church, they are exceptions—few and far between—hut
with the Baptist Church, they are of common occurrence.
Of course, you will not condemn the Southern Methodist
Church for instituting legal process for the recovery of
rights, denied by an -abolition sentiment. Moreover, the
very suit in question was conducted in so kind a spirit,
as. to elicit the admiration of the legal gentlemen con¬
nected with it. That your disorders are of common oc¬
currence, is not surprising to any one who considers the
incongruous elements of your system of government;
which cannot properly be called a. government at all.
They exist at all times. Hear the language of the Bap¬
tist papers, your own recent exchanges: "The Bible
Union, at its anniversary, refused to disclaim fellowship
with the sentiments of Alexander Campbell."
Again: "What a melancholy spectacle is now exhibit¬
ed injhe Baptist denomination, in some sections of our
country; brethren who ought to love each other, have
been indulging in mutual criminationa of character, so
virulent, as would inevitably have produced bloodshed,
had the same epithets been employed "in political con¬
troversy."—(Biblical Recorder, N. C., June 7th.) "The
object of the leaders of the Bible Union is to rule or ruin
the denomination."—(Tennessee Baptist.) From the
preamble and resolutions of the Alum Creek Baptist
Church, Ohio, tve learn that " Peter Fitzgerald had been
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
175
excluded, and bad manifested no repentance for the
crimes for which he was excluded." Two years after
his exclusion, the Berlin Church, in the same county,
investigated the charges against Fitzgerald, and ac¬
quitted him. The Alum Creek Church thereupon re¬
solved, " That we, as a Church, do solemnly protest
against the. conduct of said Berlin Church and council
in said premises, as immoral in its tendency, and, as
such, we disclaim fellowship with all such acts of Popery.
J. Frey, Moderator."—(Journal and Messenger, Cincin¬
nati, June 1st.) So it seems you have some Popery in
your Church, as your own poets say. Once more: " In
the mountains, a custom long prevailed, that Churches
considered it a part of their Republican privilege to
choose their pastoral supply from year to year:" accord¬
ingly, Thomas Stradley, anticipating this result, resign¬
ed his pastoral charge, but the party opposed to him,
not being ready to carry1 out their point, deferred the
election until the next meeting, at which twenty voted
for him, and fifteen for James Blythe. On Sunday, when
Stradley went to preach, James Blythe and his' party
set up opposition preaching, within1 sixty or seventy
yards of the Church." This is stated in a letter from
Thomas Stradley, Jr., to the Carolina Intelligencer,
June 14th. Such are a few of the specimens of all
kinds of disorder existing in the Baptist Church to this
very day.
I will gladly relieve your mind upon the question of
the falsity charged upon certain positions taken against
Methodism. If you look over my letters again, you will
find 1 have not applied the term falsehood to any thing
connected with our discussion. I pronounced the au^
A DISCUSSION ON
thor of the article from the "Watchman," a slanderer.
I affirmed that certain propositions extracted from ^it
were false. I add now, that they were grossly slander¬
ous. You know the distinction between the terms false
and falsehood— the former simply denies the truthful¬
ness of the matter in question—the latter charges the
author of it with lying. Saul of Tarsus, when he deemed
Christ an imposter, no doubt, uttered what was untrue,
yet he was not a liar; but when Peter denied his Mas¬
ter, he uttered a falsehood, or in plainer speech, he lied.
Under the influence of prejudice, and in almost total ig¬
norance of our system, you have sadly misrepresented
Methodism; in sincerity, no doubt, or you would not
have opened your columns for this discussion. Never¬
theless, the positions which were false in the "Watch¬
man," are no less false in your endorsement of them.
And no less untrue are your own glaring errors, which I
have so often been,called to correct; such, for instance,
as that great mistake affecting vitally the rights of
membership in .our Churches—that a bishop can rein¬
state an expelled member, and " the word of a bishop is
the end of all Strife." And now, brother, I wot that
through ignorance you did it, as do also other rulers
among you. Your fault lies not in being unacquainted
with Methodism, but in attacking us without provoca¬
tion, when you knew not what you did. It is not con¬
genial with my spirit to point out the defective work¬
ings of your disjointed government. I would rather
look upon the Christian enterprise and sweet piety of
many of your members.
Nor do I look upon your government as anti-Kepub-
lican. I cannot use the word in so loose a sense; for
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
lit
nothing can be a^-Republican but that which would
overthrow a Republic; and I have no fears that you will
attempt that: albeit your system be never so unlike our
civil government, to which Methodism bears so striking
a resemblance. And withal, the good sense and piety of
your members will make you prosperous, in spite of the
defects of your ecclesiastical economy.
With assurances of Christian regard,
I subscribe myself, yours in Christ,
E. J. HAMILL.
August I6th, 1855.
A DISCUSSION ON
REPLY TO LETTER Y.
METHODIST CHURCH PROPERTY CASE.
The " sun " and " moon " of " onr Episcopacy " slightly eclipsed;
An interesting engagement between the two wings of the " terri¬
ble army with banners;" A circuit rider slain, and a bishop put
hors de combat; " Our Episcopacy" sues " our Episcopacy;" Two
important principles evolved in the suit; Extracts from th<3
speeches of Messrs. Lord and Johnson, the counsel for the claim¬
ants; Episcopal Methodism an aristocracy, which " admits no con¬
stituents;" The decision of the court; Each party recognizing the
decision, the one by yielding to, the other by accepting the award;
The relative ability of the United States' Circuit Court, and " an
obscure local organ," to injure "our Episcopacy;" Sorrowful
light; More than a million of the "rank and file" of the " terrible
army" slain at " one fell swoop;" Mote about the "Democratic
element."
Friendly greeting; Reasonable expectations disappointed; The
Munster affair again; A civil, not a religious movement; A
sprinkling of sprinklers among the insurgents; Buck; The Ink Fish;
An interesting syllogism; The "four points" vindicated; Episco¬
pal remedy for Church disorders worse than the disease; Dead
palsy; Ministers' and deacons' meetings again; A practical ques¬
tion propounded to the laity of the Methodist Episcopal Church;
"Hendersonian" logic; A "strictness of speech" that cuts two
ways; No legislative authority given to the Churches by Christ
and the Apostles; A stride towards Rome; Some plain questions
asked;- The advantage which " <Jur Episcopacy" might have been to
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
m
Paul and the primitive Churches, in rectifying their disorders;
"Duplicity;" Not responsible for results, where facts are stated;
Unkind insinuation in regard to Bishops McKendree and Bascom;
The " man of straw" betraying tokens of sensibility; The charge
of second-handed quotations, and garbling; An enquiry after the
"symbols of faith, called creeds" In the apostolic age; Supposed
to bp the New Testament; Those who adopt it as their only rule
of faith and conduct have something which can 'be " accurately
styled Church Government;" Satisfactory explanation.
" Now, therefore, there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to Jaw one with
another. Why do ye not rather take Wrong ? Why do ye not rather suffer yourselves
to be defrauded?"—I Cor. 6, 7.
" Money is a defence."—Solomon.
It is proper that we again state the precise question
at issue in this discussion. It is important that the
reader should have it always distinctly before his mind.
The question is this: is iMethodist Episcopacy in its,nature
and tendencies, anti-Democratic and an ti-JRepublicanl In
taking the affirmative of this proposition, we have dis¬
tinctly stated from the commencement,, that we are not
attacking the patriotism of any man or set of men. We
have been discussing a principle- in ecclesiastical polity,
which has in all ages of the world tended to abuse and,
corruption. We have been attempting to sho;w that
there is nothing in the Methodistic complexion of Epis¬
copacy, which has inclined us to change pur opinion of
its nature and practical results. Its origin and history
up to this time, so far as our means of information ex¬
tend, point unmistakeably to the same spiritual and
temporal tyranny, which has marked its progress in
every age of the world, since it first extinguished the
rights of the Churches in the third and fourth centuries.
And in pursuing our object, we have found it necessary
180
A DISCUSSION ON
to bring to light some plain and startling facts—all of
which has been done with no unkind feeling to a living
soul. That there is a complexion of narrow-minded re¬
ligious prejudice,, which cannot comprehend how plain
truths, told in a plain way, in regard to an organic
principle of governmental economy, can comport with
personal good will and christian charity, is by no means
surprising. But then to yield to such an influence,
would be to sacrifice principle to policy—the authority of
God to the authority of man—and practically to declare
that every reformation which has ever been 'attempted
in religion, morals and civil government, has been a
curse to the world. And this we are not prepared to
admit, even out of complaisance of " the largest denom¬
ination of Christians " in this country. The more exten¬
sive and wide-spread the evil, the greater the cause for
alarm.
We now propose to examine the- " Methodist Episco¬
pal Church Property Case," as. argued and decided in
the "United States Circuit Court for the Southern District
of New York, printed and circulated under the auspices
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South and North.
We shall try and be a^ brief as possible,- so as to dis¬
pose of it in a single article, though we assure the read¬
er that a volume could be profitably written upon this
single case.
And let lis premise here, that if the " Democratic ele¬
ment" really exists in the system, it certainly could not
have eluded the perception of the learned counsel and
Court who argued and adjudicated that case. If ever
an occasion offered itself in which to elucidate the ar¬
cana of " our Episcopacy," surely this was the occasion.
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
181
The whole history of its establishment and practical
workings, for nearly three-quarters^ of a century, was
placed in evidence before the Court, and expounded with
distinguished ability by .the most learned counsel on
both sides. The powers of the clergy, the bishops and' ^tra¬
velling preachers, was the point to be argued and decided
before that august tribunal. We shall recognize the
" Property Case," then, as involving an ..authentic, re¬
liable exposition of Episcopal Methodism.
When the ministers of any denomination assume the
management and control of its property, they not only
adopt the very principle which all civil despots have
done to enslave the people, but are guilty at the same
time, of departing from the great work to which they
profess to have been called by the Holy Ghost. The
tribe of Levi, who were the spiritual teachers of reli¬
gion, were not allowed to own one foot of land, or in¬
deed any other kind of property.* The Apostles them¬
selves would not so much as consent to disburse the
benefactions of the Church at Jerusalem, among the
poor, but asked the Church to elect seven deacons, a
kind of board of managers,* to attend to this business,
so that they w could . give themselves entirely to the
word of God and prayer." Observe, they did not ap¬
point these deacons themselves", but requested the
Church to do- it. "We beg the reader to observe this
principle, as we proceed to analyze this " case."
In 1844, the General Conference assembled in "the
City-of New York. A case was carried up to it
from the State of Maryland, to this effect: A Mr. Hard¬
ing, a travelling preacher, had been deposed from the
ministry by the Maryland Conference, because -he was
16
182
A DISCUSSION ON
a slave bolder. Possessing the right of appeal, he ap¬
plied to'the General Conference for relief. That body,
by a very large majority, confirmed the action of the
Maryland Conference, in deposing Mr. Harding. Im¬
mediately the question recurred—If we depose a com-
jnon circuit rider for being a slave holder, what shall we
do with a bishop who is guilty of the same crime? Bishop
Andrew, of Georgia, (than whom a more amiable, meek,
and pious man perhaps never endured the mitre,) was
known to be a slave holder. This was the great question
of the occasion. It brought on the engagement between
fhe two wings_pf the " terrible army with banners." And
never, within the history of this Republic, has ecclesi¬
astical domination made such arrogant assumptions to
interfere with the civil, social, and domestic institutions
•of the country. Here is an aspect of Episcopacy which
may well alarm the fears of the Christian and the pa¬
triot. * A General Conference of the Methodist Episco¬
pal Church of the United States arraigns one of its first
Officers, and holds over him the penalty of degradation,
and for what? For the crime of being a slave holder]—as¬
suming to interfere with an institution in the States,
which the most rabid abolitionist declares Congress can¬
not dol
"Well—the measure was carried. Bishop Andrew was
instructed to suspend the exercise of the-functions of his bishop¬
ric, until he manumitted his slaves. Whereupon the Southern
members of the Conference brought in a solemn protest
against the measure, as "extrajudicial." That protest
was answered by a committee appointed on the part of
the majority. Dr. Capers (the late bishop) introduced
a series of resolutions contemplating a peaceful separa-
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
188
tion of the South from, the North, and the organization
of a Southern General Conference. These resolutions
also ceded to the Southern members, provided they
should form such an organization, " all the Churches,
schools, colleges, cemeteries," &c., lying within their
specified territory, and authorized the managers of the
" Book Concern" to negotiate an equitable division of
its funds with such commissioners as might be appoint¬
ed from the Sotith. These resolutions were passed by
a decided majority. And here let it be distinctly not¬
ed, that the bishops and clergy at this Conference, as¬
sumed an absolute proprietorship in " all the Churches,
schools, colleges, Book Concern," &c., belonging to the
Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States. Time
and again the impression has been sought to be made,
during this discussion, that, " with regard- to the busi¬
ness in which the laity are equally interested with the
ministry—such business as constitutes the Sphere of
operations" of Baptist "Conventions,* State and general,
they (the Methodist Episcopal Church) "have already
lay delegation, and lay management"—^and that it is
only "the privilege of scattering" the "ministers to the
four winds," appointing them to their respective fields
of labor, that the laity have no voice.—See Bro. Hamill's
third letter. Are the laymen of that Church "-equally
interested with the ministry," in the Churches, schools,
colleges, cemeteries, Book Concern? &c. Bro. Hamill
will not deny this. And jet, tvhfen the bishops and
clergy in General Conference assembled, assert an ab¬
solute proprietorship in, and a right to dispose of, all this
immense- aggregation of Church property in the United
States, not a single layman's voice was ever heard in
184
A DISCUSSION ON
the council that argued, or the vote that decided the
fate of this measure 1 Nay, further: in the parties liti¬
gant in the famous lawsuit we propose reviewing, as
appears upon the face of the " bill," there is not the
name of a single layman upon either side!
But to proceed: After the Conference adjourned, sun¬
dry scruples suggested themselves to the minds of the
Northern managers of the "Book Concern," as to whe¬
ther the seceding party, (the Southern division,) could
be legitimately recognized as a Methodist Episcopal
Church—whether the admission of such a principle
would not destroy the unity of the Church—whether the
Church have the right to cut itself in twain, and thus
commit a .kind of moral suicide, &c. &c: They, there¬
fore, refused to enter into the negotiation with the
Southern commissioners, as .directed by the General
Conference. Under the leadership of Henry B. Bascom,
than whom they could not have chosen a more chival¬
rous generalissimo, the Southern'wing of the " terrible
army with banners" organized its forces, and immedi¬
ately issued a pmmons to the Northern wing of the
" terrible army with banners," to " meet them at Philippic
when and where, with " weapons of warfare that- were
carnal," they should decide who was to heir the "images
and superscriptions" of Uncle Sam.
We wish that time and space would allow us to enter
into the full merits of this case. We have only time to
establish two points which directly bear upon the ques¬
tion we are discussing.
First: That the Methodist Episcopal Church of the United
States, in its governmental economy, isnothingmore nor less than
the bishop and travelling clergy.
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
185
Secondly: That they hate no constituents. They are
sovereign, and are accountable to no power on earth
but to their own consciences.
Now for the proof of these propositions. Mr. .Lord,
one of the counsel for the claimants, spoke as follows,:
" In vain you look into this Methodist system, prior
to 1808, for any restrictions on the General Conference
of that Church- If that body had chosen to become So-
cinian* if it had chosen to adopt the Presbyterian or
Baptist forms, either of government or of doetrine, it
was in its power to do it. There was no limit They
represented the . Church—they were the Church. The
Church dispersed its light from the preachers. The
laity were not known in the governing body. Mktters
of doctrine, discipline, and everything were in the go
verning body. If that was so up to 1808,, what was
that body after that period? It was the same General
Cow/ereBceT-r-Prop. Case, p. 163.
. The Hon. BeverdY Johnson, who-also represented the
Southern Commissioners in that case, spoke thus: "This
Church, be it remembered, even unto the present time,
and I speak it in no offensive sense, as regards its gov¬
ernment, has been absolutely, since the days of Wesley,
an aristocracy. Laymen have had, and now have no
voice in it. If there is a layman within the sound of
my voice, he knows he has no voice now. Heretofore, they
have been satisfied with the-government. They have
acted upon the saying of Pope,—
1 For forms of government let fools contest,
That which is best administered is best.'
They perhaps will be found changing their opinion,
when they find it is not always best administered.
186
A DISCUSSION ON
" Now I want to know, if the entire sovereign power
of the Church was in the ministers, the preachers, what
other body on the face of. God's earth was there in 1808
upon which to devolve the power of dividing the Church,
which must have been in the ministers; than the Confer¬
ence of 1808. The ministers made the Church. The
ministers, in the governmental sense, are the Church.
The sovereigns are the ministers, and if it be a. part of
the sovereign power, in a body of this description, to
divide itself, then that power existed in the Conference-
of ministers of 1808, or it is gone. The admission is,
that it cannot be extinguished. It is absolute, inherent,
and alienable, as my brother, Mr. Choate, admitted. A
body unlimited in the authority to create, is equally un¬
limited in the authority to destroy, responsible only to
their consciences for the manner in which either author¬
ity is exercised."—Meth. Ch. Property Case, p. 331.
Again: on page 328, speaking of the action of the
Conference of 1784, Mr. Johnson said—" They admit no
constituency. The time is perhaps coming when, in all pro¬
bability, they will be obliged to admit one for the good of the
Church. They resolve for themselves, and for themselves
alone,'as the pofcessors of ALL ECCLESIASTICAL
POWER known to the Methodist Church, to carry out the
particular organization authorized by John Wesley,
without any other authority than his, and their own convic¬
tion that the good of the Church demanded such a spe¬
cial and particular organization." And still further, on
page 329, Mr. J. continues: "No modimm of power was
left elsewhere. The Church was not to look elsewhere
for any portion of authorityWe could quote much
more to the same purpose, but this is sufficient.
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
18.T
Now, let us sum up this evidence. Here are two of
the first lawyers in the Union, employed, by the com¬
plainants, the commissioners of the Methodist Episcopal
Church, South, to defend their right to an equitable di¬
vision of " Church property" before the United States'
Circuit Court, relying wholly upon the evidence which
they furnished to their hand, declaring what? That the
Conference of it84, composed of sixty travelling preach¬
ers, with Messrs. Asbury and Coke at their head, in
adopting the doctrines and discipline of that Church,
" admit no constituency"—that " not one particle of
power was left elsewhere—that laymen hav^had, and
now have yio voice in j,t—that the ministers "compose the
Church—that in a governmental sense they are-the
Church—that it is absolutely ah ARISTOCRACY—that it
possesses unlimited power .to create and to destroy—that
it could have become Socinian had it chosen to do so—
and that it is responsible to no tribunal on earth but
the consciences of those who wield its authority 1" All
this, and much more of like character, was solemnly
pronounced, ,as already intimated, by two of the ablest
lawyers of the United States, before one of the highest
judicial functionaries of the country, as an exposition
of Methodist Episcopacy, and published to the world
under the auspices of the Methodist Episcopal Church,
South and North! And yet for daring to quest'i'oh.its
Republicanism, we are to be denounced by its patented
journals as a demagogue, a bigot, an ignoramus, a legitimate
child of the father of liesh
But we have higher evidence than all this to sustain
our position. After the case was elaborately argued
by such men as Johnson, Choate, Lord and Wood, Judge
188
A DISCUSSION ON
Neison1 delivered the opinion of tlie Court, from which,
we make the following extract:
"2. As to the power of the General Conference to
authorize a separation of the Church organization.
The Methodist Episcopal Church of the United States
was established, in its government, doctrine, and disci¬
pline, by a General Conference of the travelling preach¬
ers in this communion, in 1184. Down to that time, the
Methodist Societies in America had been governed by
John Wesley, the founder of this denomination of Chris¬
tians, through the agency of his assistants. During
this year, the entire government^ was taken into the
hands of the travelling preachers with his approbation
and assent. They organized it, established its doctrines
and discipline, appointed the several authorities—su¬
perintendents or bishops, ministers and preachers—to
administer its polity, and promulgate its doctrines and
teaching throughout the land. From that time to this,,
the source and fountain of all its temporal power are
the travelling preacherg in this connexion in General
Conference' assembled. The lay members of the Church,
have no part or connexion with its governmental organ¬
ization, and never had. , The travelling preachers com¬
prise the embodiment of its power, ecclesiastical and
temporal; and, when assembled in General Conference
according to the usages and discipline of the Church,
represent themselves, and have no constituents: and
thus the organization continued until the year 1808,
when a modification toolj: place." — Appendix Prop.
Case, pp. 10, 11.
The " modification" to which Judge Nelson alludes,
relates to the organization of a General out of the An¬
nual Conferences, which occurred in 1808. The Judge
then proceeds to show that that, modification did not af¬
fect in the slightest degree the principle he had laid
down, to wit: That, the bishops and clergy in General
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
189
Conference assembled embodied all the power, " eccle¬
siastical and temporal," known in their gOYernmental
e'conomy.
The decision of the Couft, then, sustains every posi¬
tion taken by the counsel. We will state these positions
again in still fewer words, confirmed by the extract
from the opinion of the Court: All the derived power
which the bishops and clergy of the Methodist Episcopal
Church ever had came, not from the Churches, but from
John Wesley—they established its doctrines and disci¬
pline—created its officers to administer its polity—they
are the* source and fountain of'all. its power—laymen
have no connexion with its governmental" organization
and never had—and when assembled in General Con¬
ference according to the usage and discipline of the
Church, represent themselves, AND IT AVE NO1 CONSTIT¬
UENTS ! No hill of exceptions was filed to this decision.
The Methodist Episcopal Church, North, yielded to,
and the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, accepted
the award! Both divisions of the Church stand com¬
mitted to this decision/as containing a true and faith¬
ful exposition of the governmental economy of that
Church. Why have we never heard these lawyers and
Judges denounced as demagogues and hi got s—and as ig¬
norant of the subject they were adjudicating? They
aver, that so far as government is concerned, (and that
is the okLY subject we are discussing,) the bishops and
travelling clergy are, de facto, thb Church—that in its
legislative and administrative economy, its lay members
are unknown—that it is an aristocracy—and has no constit¬
uents, Now, if all this were untrue, can any man sup¬
pose for one moment, that the North would have yielded
its claim to four hundred thousand dollars, and that the
190
A DISCUSSION ON
South would have accepted it? " Is the "Democratic ele¬
ment" in the Methodist Episcopal Church, - South, if it
ever existed, worth only four hundred thousand dollars?
And yet, to secure that pitiful sum, the six hundred
thousand private memb.ers in the Southern division of
that Church, and, we may add, a larger number in the
Northern division, aggregating a million and a half, or
nearly so, of American citizens, are recognized by the
public records of the country, in their ecclesiastical re¬
lations, as below the rank of common citizens-—as being no
constituents ! 1 We do pot design to introduce degrad¬
ing comparisons; but we must be permitted to ask, what
more humiliating language could -be used in regard to
the subjects of the most absolute despotisms on earth,
than that they "ate no constituents?" Methodists! local
preachers and private members! lovers of God, of truth,
of liberty, and of your country!
"If you have nature in you, hear it not!"
" The travelling preachers comprise the embodiment of
its power, ecclesiastical and TEMPORAL; and when
assembled in General Conference, according to the usage
and discipline of the Church, represent themselves, and
have no -Constituents!-" What more have we ever said?
Why is it, we again ask, that Judges Nelson and
Betts, the Hon. Reverdy Johnson, and his colleagues,
have never been held "to account for uttering such lan¬
guage as this? Was it because four hundred thousand
dollars depended upon the maintenance of these doc¬
trines? Or rather was it not because they spoke, the
truth? Why is it that they have escaped the eccle¬
siastical lash of the .guardians of Episcopacy, religi¬
ous and political, while " an obscure local organ," to
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
191
use the very delicate and respectful languagemf a Method¬
ist contemporary, for alleging nothing more than this,
is to be denounced as guilty of " the lowest piece of de-
magogueism, and narrow minded bigotry that has yet
transpired?" The United States Court was- certainly
capable of inflicting a more serious injury upon " our
Episcopacy" than an " obscure local organ." And yet,
when that decision was announced, the editors of all
the Methodist journals, South, congratulated themselves
and their Chnrch, upon the successful termination of the
suit, and accepted the award of the Court without so
much as questioning,, so far as we know, a single prin¬
ciple upon which it was made. "Our Episcopacy" sues
" our Episcopacy" at one of the highest judicial tribun¬
als of the country. The parties litigant prove to the
satisfaction of the counsel and judges, that the bishops
and travelling .preachers "made the Church;" that the
bishops and travelling preachers " are, in the govern¬
mental sense, the Church;" that "this Church ever has
been, and is now absolutely ax aristocracy;" that they
admit no constituency, and have no constituency." And
the solemn claim is set up by theSe champions, that Me¬
thodist Episcopacy, as a distinct form of government,
not only harmonizes with, but wonderfully illustrates
and strengthens those great fundamental principles
which constitute the substratum of our glorious Repub-,
lie; that all men are Created equal; that all power is
inherent in the people; and, that the will of the people,
constitutionally expressed, is the law of the land! I He
that can believe it, let him 1 All we have to say is, we
envy not the huge dimensions of that credulity, which
can swallow that camel.
192
A DISCUSSION ON
Such, then, was the engagement* between the two
wings of this *' terrible army with banners." -Let us
now survey the field of battle, after this " terrible " con¬
flict, and try to estimate the loss and gain " upon each
side of the combatants. The Southern wing of the
"terrible army" lost a circuit rider (Harding) and had a
bishop (Andrew) put hors de tombat, among the regular
officers of the line. The Northern wing lost about four
hundred thousand dollars, which, of course, was gained
by the Southern wing, and which, to that extent, com¬
pensated for the loss of their officers. Hut now as to
the " rank and file" upon either side—the heart sickens
at the scene-of carnage.
" If you have tears, prepare to shed them now."
Up to dhe time of the commencement of this engage¬
ment, it was understood by the official organs of the
two wings, that the " constituency," the common sol¬
diers of the " terrible army," amounted in the aggregate
to about one million two or three hundred thousand.—
But alas 1'from the dispatches which have reached us
from the scene of conflict, signed and sealed by the pro¬
per officers, not orre common soldier survives, to" com¬
memorate in verse or history, the deeds of valor which
were performed, at Pbilippi! The dispatch reads—;
" THEY HAVE NO CONSTITUENTS !" They had
claimed up to that date,a constituency" of between a
million and a million and a half. At the close of ihe en¬
gagement, Judge, Nelson declares there is nonel no,
not onel Marathon, Actium, and Waterloo—Saratoga,
New Orleans, and Sebastopol — hide your diminished
head^l Here is a " terrible army with banners/' which,
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
193
at one fell swoop, annihilates a " constituency" of al.
most a million and a half!
But look at another aspect of this power claimed for
the "bishops and travelling clergy in General Conference
assembled. Says Mr. Lord, one of the counsel for the
complainants, and of cours'e good authority with the
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, " If that body (the
General Conference) had chosen to become Socinian;
if it had chosen to adopt the Presbyterian or Baptist
forms, either of government or doctrine, it was in its
power to do it." What! change the whole Methodist
denomination in the United States into a Socinian body?
Or into a Presbyterian or Baptist organization, both in
discipline and doctrine? "Yes," says Mr. Lord, "there was
no limit; they represented the Church; they were the
Church;" "They admit no Constituents," responds Mr.
Johnson; " "They have no constituents," says the Court!
Now, so far as we know, none of the organs of that
Church had ever denied these positions of the counsel and
Court. Indeed, upon their successful maintenance, de¬
pended th^issue of the pending suit. If the sovereign
power did, not belong to the bishops and clergy of that
Church, they had no right to divide its property. But
if the sovereign power did reside there; if "not a modi¬
cum of power was left elsewhere,"—then, as a matter of
course, that power could be exercised upon all questions
■of doctrine or discipline without being responsible to
any authority for its exercise " but their own con¬
sciences." Need we ask, can the most'stubborn Incre¬
dulity itself deny, if this be a faithful exposition of Epis¬
copal Methodism, that it is a system of CLERICAL
ABSOLUTISM.
IT
i94
A DISCUSSION ON
Now, reader, do you not agree jvith us, that it will
take a microscope of a hundred fold'jhore power than
has yet revealed the wonders of a universe iri ar single,
drop of water, to discover the " Democratic element" in
a system which " admits no constituents"—which "has
no constituents!"
We congratulate Brother Hamill upon his safe return
to the people of his charge. With a right good will, we
again bid him welcome to our columns, sincerely trust¬
ing that his respite will enable him to enlighten us more
fully upon the jDerhocracy of " our Episcopacy." Again,
also, must we commend him for the^very kind spirit
which pervades his article. It is so very different from
that which has been manifested towards us by sundry
of his brethren, in several of the "Advocates," that the
task of responding to it is a real pleasure to us. We
trust that this discussion will prove one thing to the
sensitive and censoriohs, and that is, that it is possible
for Christian men to discuss their differences with the kindest
feelings to each other, as well as in a Christian spirit.
We had hoped, after the lapse of so many weeks, that
our brother was preparing an article entirely upon the
question at issue between us. When lo! the very first
paragraph contains another allusion to the "madmen of
Munster," as they are called. On reflection, however,
we suppose that the Munster insurrection has about as
much connection with Methodist Episcopacy, as Me¬
thodist Episcopacy has with American Democracy. We
suppose we must inform our brother that that movement
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
195
in Germany was not a religions, but a political one. Its
promoters were what were subsequently known in Eng¬
land as "fifth monarchy men." Various sects,were en¬
gaged in it. One of its leaders, on »one occasion, sprin¬
kled several hundreds of his followers with a mop—
somSwhat after the manner Mr. Wesley supposed John
sprinkled the crowds that came to his ministry on the
banks of the Jordan. Now, it strikes us that this is ndt
exactly Baptistic. Buck says: "It must be,"acknow¬
ledged that the true rise of the insurrection of this period
ought not to be attributed to religious opinions." A great
part were Ana-baptists. * * * A great part, also,
were Roman Catholics, and a still -greater part had no
religious principles at all." *«
Then follows a pretty long episode upon " close com¬
munion" and " Baptist tafiarchy." Indeed, most of the
article is taken up with the latter subject. Now, Bro.
Hamill, if you could demonstrate, not only to the satis¬
faction of every Methodist,, but of every thinking man on
earth, that Baptist Churches in this country were line¬
ally descended from the Munster insurrectionists—nay,
furthep, that the first Baptist Church was organized in
the bottomless pit,and was one of the "unclean spirits"
which John saw issuing from the mouth of " the beast,"
.—what would all that have to dp wjth the plain, practi¬
cal question at issue between us—" Is Methodist Epis¬
copacy anti-Republican?" Ichthyologists inform us, that
there belongs to the finny tribe, -a singular species,
which has the power, when pursued by an enemy, of
throwing out a dark, muddy substance, which has much
the same effect upon the water that a cloud has upon
the atmosphere. And having created this pavilion of
196
A DISCUSSION ON
darkness, it very dexterously elude's the pursuit of its
foe. It is called the '^Ink-fish." Verbum sat.
Seriously, Brother Hamill, what would "Hedge" pro- ■
nounce of your logic, if the foregoing were adduced as
"specimens? You set out to ghow, what? Why, " the
striking analogy between the Methodist Church govern¬
ment and the government of the United States." This
you do, first by appealing to the insurrection among the
peasants of Germany, in the sixteenth century; second¬
ly, to " close communion," as you call it, as practised
among Baptists; and thirdly, to Baptist anarchy! That
is—there was an insurrection in Germany, in the six¬
teenth century-^moreover, the Baptists practise " close
communion,"—and still further, (how astonishingly cu¬
mulative the argument?) Baptist Churches sometimes
get into confusion: Therefore, thege is a " striking ana¬
logy between the government of the Methodist Episco¬
pal Church-and the government of the United States!"
Shades of Locke, Reid, and Hedge! what profound rea¬
soning! But, as already intimated, that penetration
which can evolve the " Democratic element" in " our
Episcopacy," can find no difficulty in demonstrating the
logical connection between the prefhises and conclusion
of the above argument.
The four points we suggested as organic elements in
a New Testament Church, are "partly correct," but
"may need some emendation." Well, what are these
emendations? First, as to the constituency of a gospel
Church, Brother Hamill's answer varies from ours only
so far as to include, we suppose, " seekers." But as we
did nut set out to ascertain the constituency of a Me¬
thodist, but an Apostolic Church, there is no need of a
METHODIST EPISCOPACY
19T
serious reply. Our position remains impregnable, that
in the Apostles' age, Churches were composed of "saints,
faithful brethren, the-sanctified, saved," &c. Secondly:
to our question—Are these saints and. faithful ones com¬
petent to- govern themselves—he answers: "They are,
within certain limitations." These limitations are, that
Christ has given the fundamental laws—that the Spirit
calls- men to the ministry—that the* Church may judge
who are called to the holy office—positions, these, which
Baptists have held* from time immemorial—and finally,
" to bear some sort of rule in the Church of God, as Paul
saith, ' Remember them who have the rule over you,' &c.,
and may also do whatever else is necessary for good govern¬
ment7" Pretty large margin, this, Brother Hamill.
Who are to-judge of what is necessary for-"good,
government," the rulers Qr the governed? It reminds
us of the last article in the rules of a well knowp aca¬
demy in a neighboring State: That as no system of
rules coulcl meet every emergency, especially in the
government of naughty boys, much would le left to the
discretion of the teachers. Reader, is not our brother
demonstrating the "democratic element" with ^ venge¬
ance? Thirdly: Has the New Testament inculcated
any form of Church government? His answer to
this is somewhat like " our. Episcopacy," a little diffi¬
cult to understand. If, however, we can comprehend
his mpaning, he answers it negatively. He thinks, from
the " brevity of Scripture, the variety of mental charac¬
ter, the fallibility of even good men," & c., that "confessions
of faith, or creeds," may " serve as points of union
among Christians, and as defences against the encroach¬
ments of error." Now, there is but one way to test the
198
A DISCUSSION ON
correctness of any principle; and that'is, to observe its
practical operation. A few plairr questions and answers
may suggest to the mind of the reader all that need be
said upon this point. What divides th6 various denomi¬
nations of Christians from, each other? Creeds. What
keeps up this division, and makes it more marked every
year? Creeds. What is the first thing that every new
sect does that springs up in the country? It " draws
up a symbol of faith,-called a creed." Does this effect
a " union>" of this sect " among Christians?" It separates
its "members from all other Christians. What is the first
step to effect a union among all Christians? The de¬
struction of that which now separates thene—their
creeds. What is the next step? The adoption of the
Bible, and the Bible only, as the entire rule of faith and
practice.
Thq truth is, human oreeds may make pretty good
servants, but most wretched masters. Our brother
gives one very singular reason why this discretionary
power should be left in. the hands of men. It is the
"fallibility even of good men/" Human fallibility, it
seems to us, is a pretty good reason why "even good"
but uninspired men, should not be trusted to draft a
constitution for a divine government. As to " creeds "
being barriers to " error," "we think the reverse. We
think that they foster error. A Presbyterian denounces
Methodism as " anti-Christ." A Methodist avers that
the cherished dogma of Presbyterianism, " eternal, par¬
ticular, and unconditional election," emanated from the
bottomless pit, and tfiat it will return thither. Are they
both right? And how long will it take their " creeds" to
effect a union among these " Christians?" But, Fourth-
METHOBSIT EPISCOPACY.
199
ly, to the question: Do the Churches belong to the min¬
istry, or the ministry to the Churches? our brother
responds: "Neither, but both," &c., and to prove this,
he refers to a passage, upon which all 'despotic hier¬
archies have always insisted, " expounding*it with a
richness and ah unction as if the very substance of
God?s message to man were therein summarily compre¬
hended," says Isaac Taylor. The ^passage is this—
" Obey them that have the rule over you \n "the Lord."
But in what were they to obey them? Why clearly in
their spiritual instructions and admonitions? Ministers
are members of the Churches, and as sqch have all the
rights of other members. The office to which they are
called, is a spiritual, not a temporal office. The injunc¬
tion is purely a spiritual one, for the Apostle immediately
adds, " they (these ministers) watch for souls." Does it
need a serious argument to prove that Churches have
the right to control that which emanates from them¬
selves—the property? Yet, Jtfdge.-Nelson, as we have
seen, declares that in the Methodist Episcopal Church,
" the travelling preachers comprise the embodiment of
its power, ecclesiastical and temporal," &c. So that
Episcopal Methodism places in the hands of its bishops
and travelling clergy all power, spiritual and temporal,
known in its organization. "Not a modicum of it is left
elsewhere." It is, therefore, in the true and 'proper
sense of that term, a system of clerical absolutism. Our
brother speaks of the " checks and balances "of the sys¬
tem. Where are these " checks and balances?" Bishop
Hamline affirms that they recognize " no tribunal to
cure errors or rectify wrongs." * Mr. Johnson avers,
" they are responsible to no authority but their own
200
A DISCUSSION ON
consciences " for the exercise of their power. Where,
then, are its "checks and balances?" We claim, then,
that all our positions remain impregnable.
But our apology for disorders among Baptist Churches,
was quite-lame. So, doubtless, the friends of monarchy
think* in regard to our " apologies " frfr occasional out¬
breaks in our popular form of government—such as is
now rife in the State of "Massachusetts in regard to the
fugitive slave law. They could, no doubt, read us
many lectures upon monarchy as being a " system of
surpassing energy." Now, the only reasons why we
cannot ^accept the remedy which " our Episcopacy" pro¬
poses for these evils, are, First: It is ifnscriptural, as
we think; Secondly: It is worse than the disease„ The dead
palsy would free us from all sensations of pain, heat,
cold, wounds, and strokes. »It is a " system of surpass¬
ing energy." Indeed, it is a kind of universal panacea
for all diseases. Once let it fasten upon the system,
and we are moleste<J no more with other " disorders."
But ; "the reader can supply the commentary.
That "exceedingly powerful advice," given at the
Tuskegee ministers' and deacons' meeting, still haunts
our brother's imagination. ' It was an " inquisitorial
tax!" Now, reader, we attended that meeting, as.we
have already informed yau, and participated in its pro¬
ceedings in sonje humble degree; and the sum and sub¬
stance of that " threatened exclusion" and " inquisito¬
rial tax" was this: The members who composed that
meeting, expressed their opinions in two resolutions,
introduced by a private member—First: That covetous-
ness was idolatry, and that no idolator ought to be re¬
tained in the Church. This is the " threatened exclu-
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
201
sion!" Secondly: That in meeting the necessary ex¬
penses of our Churches, we ought to obey the rule laid
down by Paul, viz.: That every man should" contribute
" apcording as God had prospered him." And this Is
the' "inquisitorial taxation!" The issue upon these
points is not between us and Brother Hamill, but be¬
tween him and God's word. The " fig leaf" was placed
there by the divine penmen. Lqt him " tear it away"
if he can.
Yes, we do cling to the allegation, that your bishops
and travelling clergy imposed girticles of faith and a
form of government upon your members without their
consents The Conference which adopted your Book of
Discipline " represented themselves, and had no consti¬
tuents," says Judge Nelson. "He who has no right to
the thing he possessed," says Dr. Barrow, " cannot pre¬
scribe or plead any length of time-to make his posses¬
sion lawful." If the original exercise of this power were
arbitrary; if it "admitted no constituency;" if it were
underived; then its exercise for a thousand years never
can make it anything" else. We have a practical ques¬
tion to agk—not Brother Hamill, nor any bishop or cler¬
gyman of his Church, but the laity—those who, but for
the occurrence of the " Church Property Case," we would
call "the Church,"—and it is this: "If the adoption of
your form of government, your Episcopacy, were now an
original question, and your General Conference wye to grant
you the same privilege which the National Convention, who
formed our federal constitution, gave to the several States, to
receive- or reject it, HOW MANY. OP YOU WOULD
VOTE FOR IT? How many of you would adopt, volun-
202
A -DISCUSSION ON
tartly, a form of government, if your rulers would allow you
the privilege, which would not recognize you as "constituents?"
But our logic upon this point is peculiarly " Hender-
sonian." Now, we do not aspire to the distinction of
founding a new schpol in logic. True,-it does require a
new system of logic to evolve the " Democratic element"
in a system of government which " has no constituents."
But we must beg our brother-to believe us sincere when
we say, we are too modest to* aspire to that distinction.
That a certain pToposition should be either true or false,
" is sheer nonsense," is it? Well, if our brother will
enlighten us as to how much truth and falsehood may
dwell together in the same proposition, in fraternal sym¬
pathy, we think he will make an achievement in logic
which will bear the palm from usj " Did our preachers
manufacture them?"—(faith and discipline, we suppose,
he means)—asks Brother Hamill. " They organized it,"
answers Judge Nelson; "established its doctrines and
discipline, appointed the several authorities—superin¬
tendents or bishops, ministers and preachers—to ad¬
minister its polity, and promulgate its doctrines and
teaching throughout the land." And yet, for saying that
the bishops and Clergy, in " establishing its doctrines
and discipline," imposed them upon the Churches with¬
out their consent, we utter "sheer nonsense!" "If that
body (the General Conference) had chosen to become
Socinian," says Mr. Lord, " if it had chosen to adopt the
Presbyterian or Baptist forms, either of government or
doctrine, it was in its power to do it." Why? " Be¬
cause," says Mr. Johnson, " it admitted no constituency."
How is the weather now, Brother Hamill—" hot" or
" cold?" Is our "logic lucid" enough?
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
203
" Our fathers taught that the Hoty Scriptures con¬
tained all things necessary to salvation." Very well;
we only wish their children would believe them.
But " in strictness of speech, there can he no such
thing as the Baptist Church." True, Brother Hamill,
and we thank God for it. Baptists repudiate such ver¬
nacular as implies such a centralization of power as that
phrase does. We have Baptist Churches—hut to apply
the term " The Baptist Church" to this community of
Churches, is a phrase no^ of. our coining. In the New
Testament, when a single Church is intended, it is so
named—" the Church at Ephesus"—" the Church at
Corinth," &c. * But when a district of country is alluded
to, in which there 'are several Churches, the phraseology
is changed, and we read of " the seven Churches of
Asia,"—" as in all the Churches»of the saints," &c. Now,
suppose we adopt Bro. Hamill's "strictness of speech,"
as applicable to "our Episcopacy" and see how it will
work. It is claimed that there are- nearly a million and
a half of members in the Methodist Episcopal Chprch in
the United States. (It is only, however, according to
the latest statistics tjiat we have seen, about one mil¬
lion three hundred thousand.) In the " Church Property
Case," it was argued by the counsel, that " the minis¬
ters were the Church," and decided by the Court, that
these ministers, the bishops a#d travelling preachers,
when assembled in Conference, according to the rules
and usages of the Church, represented themselves, and
"had no constituents." Therefore, "in strictness of
speech," the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United
States, instead of having nearly a million and a half,
have* only a membership of between six and seven thou-
204
A DISCUSSION ON
sandl" " 0, what a fall was there, my countrymen!"
That " strictness of speech," Brother Hamill, is no mean
scythe, to cut off so many heads at one stroke. Truly,
is "our Episcopacy" a "terrible army with banners!"
" Where there is no legislature, and your own autho¬
rities tell us you, have none, there can be no legislative
representatives." Most truly spoken, Brother Hamill,
and' we thank you for the compliment. And if you will
notesfeem it arrogance in us, we will undertake to en¬
lighten you a little now, and more hereafter, when this
discussion closes, upon Baptist sentiments on this sub¬
ject. We do most religiously believe that Jesus Christ
and his Apostles and evangelists did all the legislation
necessary for his Churches in all ages. We believe that
the " creed" and "form of government" which they draft¬
ed, and which is known as the New Testament, is the
product of infinite wisdom. As Christ only can know
what is pleasing to himself, we are afraid to " add
to" or " take from" that document, a single "jot or
tittle." If it had been written by uninspired men, like
" our Book of Discipline," it might have needed " mend¬
ing;" but, as it emanated from Him who "saw "the end
from beginning" we feel incompetent to a$d "anything
to it by our " legislation." If we can understand and
apply its teachings to the objects intended, it is all that
we aspire to. The lustrq, of the sun at mid-day would
not likely be much increased by the addition of a few
flickering tapers.
We confess, Brother Hamill is leading us into some
light upon the sacramental communion question. He
informs us that he would not hesitate to administer the
communion to persons baptized in any way (and so we
METHODIST EPISCOPACY 205
say, provided they have been, baptized); and that Roman
Catholic baptism is just as current as any other (a
pretty long stride toward Rome, we think); and still
further—if they have not been baptized al all, and give evi¬
dence of a desire to flee the wrath to come, &c., he is
ready to commune with them. We say Brother Hamill
is enlightening us—First: we begin now to understand
the import of a phrase quite common among his breth¬
ren. It is very usual for them to characterize their de¬
nomination as "a branch of the Church." Methodism
was established by a " presbyter" 6f the Cfhurch'of Eng¬
land. The English Church was established by a Catholic
King, Henry VIII. So that the English Episcopal Church
becomes the connecting link between " the branch" and
the original " stock." Our brother's Roman Catholic
proclivities are quite significant. Traces of the family
likeness ajre preserved with singular faithfulness and te¬
nacity even to the third generation. But, secondly: it
matters not whether the "applicant for communion has
ever been baptized in any way, or by anybody; our bro¬
ther will not refuse the communion to him on that ac¬
count! Well, " a -decent respect for the opinions of man¬
kind" has always induced writers on religious subjects
to give one of two -reasons at least for every item of
faith arid practice which they may adopt. Either, first,
it is taught in the Scriptures, or, secondly, it is taught
in the " Fathers."" That is, it is either scriptural or tra¬
ditional. Trua,4here is a wide difference between the
two; but as already intimated, it is common even
among Catholics to allege one or the other -of these.
But our brother does neither. Now, we say, if there is
a single precept or •example in all Cod's word to autho-
18
206
A DISCUSSION ON
rize the administration of the Lord's Supper to an un-
baptized person, it was in his power to have produced
it. But this he has not pretended to do. And as to the
other, to wit: the teachings of the " Fathers" we will
quote for our brother's special edification, the declara¬
tion of Dr. Wall: " No Church ever gave the communion
to any persons before they were baptized. Among all
the absurdities that were ever held, none ever main¬
tained that any person should partake of the communion
before,they were baptized."—Hist. Inf. Bap., part ii. ch.
9. Were it necessary, we could make similar quota¬
tions, from Justin. Martyr, Jerome, Austin, Bede, &c.,
among the ancient fathers; and from Drs. Manton, Dod¬
dridge, Dwightt &c., among modern divines.
Will Brother Hamill answer us the following plain
questions, without any circumlocution?
First: Does the Discipline authorize him to administer
the communion to any person who is guilty of that for
which he would be excluded from the Methodist Epis¬
copal Church?
Second: Would a man be excluded from that Church
for persistently inveighing against its doctrines and"
discipline? And
Thirdly: If such offensive person should happen to
be a Presbyterian or a .Baptist, would the offence he
less on that account?
If our brother had lived contemporaneous with Paul,
he might have saved that Apostle a deal of trouble.
He might have said to him: " Why, Paul, why don't you
frame your ecclesiastical government after the model of
'our Episcopacy!' Why put yourself to the trouble of
writing to the various Churches, entreating them to ar-
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
207
rest the tide of 'anarchy^and confusion, inaccurately
styled . . . Church government?' Just accept our pa¬
nacea for all these evils—our 'system of surpassing en-
ergy' will soon quell all these 'disorders' which give
you so much pain! Let them know that 'the will' of
their pastors and teachers 'is omnipotent in the pre¬
mises;' that they are not 'constituentsthat 'not a mo¬
dicum of power' has ever been committed to them. Do
this, Paul, and, my word for it, the Churches will no
more be troubled with 'anarchy and confusion!'" "True,"
Paul might have replied, " we have already exhorted the
Churches to 'Stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ
hath made them free, and to be not entangled again with
the yoke of bondage;'' and with what face can we now
recall'that exhortation. No! We have no such custom;
neither the Churches of God."1"
Then, too, we have " charged the bishops with du¬
plicity," &c. We have quoted what Mr. Wesley said,
and what the bishops and travelling preachers did, and
left the reader to draw his own inference. One party
says that Mr. Wesley "preferred the Episcopal mode of
Church government to any other, and that he ordained
Thomas Coke, LL.D. to the Episcopal office," &c. The
other party (Mr. Wesley) says, he "had rather be call-
•ed a knave, a fool, a rascal, or a scoundrel, than to be call¬
ed a bishop/" We have put these two statements to¬
gether; and if "duplicity" is the result, we are not
answerable.
In Baptist Churches, men enter the ministry by the
joint co-operation of the Church and its eldership; so
that Brother Mercer's opinions are just those which are
entertained by all his Baptist brethren.
208
A DISCUSSION ON
We have not " abandoned our position on the Church
Property question" yet, Brother Hamill, as you will have
seen in the first part of this article. As to the publica¬
tion of a "deed" of some Methodist Church, that were a
work of supererogation, since we have the decision of the
United States Circuit Court upon the ." Property Ques¬
tion." If the right to the. " Church property" does not
vest in the bishops and travelling preachers, how could
they have transferred " all the churches, colleges, ceme¬
teries," &c. &c., South, to the Southern division of that
Church? How could they have divided thp "Book
Fund?" The laws of the country have settled that question.
But our insinuation in reference to Bishops McKen-
dree and Bascom "was utterly unworthy of" us! Let
us see. Before they wete elevated to the bishop's chair,
they were loud in their denunciations of this "system of
surpassing energy." McKendree went so far as to
withdraw from ihe Conference, on account of the des¬
potic sway of its bishops. Bascom declared that its
rulers were " de facto, religious tyrants, because they as¬
sumed and exercised rights that do not and ean not in
the nature of things belong to them."—Rights, etc., Aft.
II. After the mitre was placed upon their heads, all
these complaints were hushed. That silence was ominous of
something. They were but men—were not beyond the
power pf temptation. If they had retracted their for¬
mer positions and gained nothing hy it, then our brother
might with some propriety say that "insinuation was
unworthy of us," and that we "could not credit it" our-
self. If, for example, A and B were to be heard in the
streets of our town, denouncing one gf the political par¬
ties of the country as being de facto, political " tyrants,"
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
200
&c.; and soon afterwards were suddenly to become si¬
lent, and be promoted to some high position of honor
and profit by tbat same party, it would look a little sus¬
picious; and people would talk, and they would likely
express what they believed. The/ads are undeniable;
the inference is not unreasonable.*
Moreover, we "have misapprehended Methodism"—
have "cheated a man of straw," and battled- him "vali¬
antly," &c.. Perhaps so. A certain Methodist clergy¬
man, no.t a thousand miles from Tuskegee, recently said
in the presence of a number of friends, that neither we
nor Brother Hamill understood Episcopal Methodism!
In w]iat impenetrable mystery must H Our Episcopacy"
be ehshrouded, that- it cannot be understood by either
friend or foe! But however this may be, "our man of
straw" is lifting " a long, loud, geheral" note of madden¬
ed fury, through its "Advocates;" which means some¬
thing.
For the extent to which Methodism admits "lay dele¬
gation and lay management," See first part of this
article.
Butwe misapprehended Bishop Hamline's remarks in
our last, because, forsooth, we quoted them "second-
handed." Now, our brother ought to inform himself a
little better before he makes grave assertions of this
kind. We quoted Bishop HamTine, to prove the autho¬
rity of the clergy, from a bishop down to a"circuit rider.
We quoted him tp .prove that the system of Methodist
Episcopacy was one of clerioal absolutism; that their
will was "an end of all strife," or, as hp expresses it,
* See Appendix Er
A DISCUSSION ON
"omnipotent in the premises? And we maintain that the
quotation was apropos, and rightly construed. We quot¬
ed, too, from a copy of the Minutes of that Conference,
in our possession. If our brother will step into our office,
and will believe his own eyes, we think we can prove to
him that we have no occasion to use " second-handed
quotations" from any source, upon any point involved
in this discussioh. Does he suppose that we have ever
doubted the power of the General Conference to depose
or expel a bishop, in the face of the fact that Bishop
Andrew xoas deposed for being a slave-holder?
We f<blundered" forsooth, in quoting from Bishop
Hamline's speech! Did we not quote him accurately?
Did we not quote all that referred to the immediate
point we were discussing—to wit: the power of the
bishop, elder, and circuit rider? Was it expected that
we should transfer the entire speech into our columns?
The charge of " garbling " is too puerile to be seriously
answered.
In saying that " the word of a bishop was the end
of all strife," we said nothing stronger than that "his
will is omnipotent in the premises."—But we deem it
due to all parties to state that«a bishop as.such cannot
reinstate an expelled member* The Quarterly Confer¬
ence and the Annual and General Conference can. The
principle is the same, however. It is this—that the
clergy of the Methodist Episcopal Church can reinstate
an excluded member or preacher ever the head of the
very Church from which he was expelled. The power
that does this, is " our Episcopacy."
But we must close. In our next article, we propose
presenting "A striking" contrast "between the govern-
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
211
ment of the Methodist Episcopal Church and the govern¬
ment of the United States." With the -avowed intention
of presenting the harmony of Episcopacy and Republi¬
canism, our brother fills up most of .his article in berat¬
ing the Baptists for their anarchy. What a'philippic
could our brother write against the Apostolic Churches!
Taking Paul's declarations in regard to the incestuous
person, I Cor. v. 1, or his account of "brothers going
to law with brother," as " our Episcopacy" recently did;
or James' question, "Whence come wars and fightings
among you?" &c., how eloquently could, he discourse of
the "anarchy and confusion" of these Churches? Hav-i
ing gleaned from various sources some half a dozen
cases of "disorders and strifes/' among the "tei? thous¬
and" Baptist Churches in the United States, he gravely
alleges, that these are to establish the general principle,
that " anarchy" is rife throughout the whole denomination!
" What lucid logic!" It is a work, too, " not congenial
with his spirit." (!) Yery well: When a man sets out
to do one. thing, and does another, it creates a suspicion
that it is not yery uncongenial. By the way, it is not
a little amusing to hear ©ur brother talk about " rulers
among us," (the Baptists,) after demonstrating to his
own satisfaction the " anarchy and confusion " of Bap¬
tist Churches. We had supposed that " anarchy and
confusion " reigned where there were no " rulers." And
does he really suppose that thoSe who adopt the New
Testament " as their only rule of faith and practice,"
really have " no Church government?" Baptists, like
other " even good but fallible men," may err in the ap¬
plication of the principles of the inspired volume in cer¬
tain cases, but to say that those who adopt it as the
212
A DISCUSSION ON
only standard of appeal in all cases both of doctrine
and discipline, have no government, is just saying, that
Christ and his inspired Apostles were either incompe¬
tent -or indifferent to the task of furnishing rules to
govern the very bodies which they themselves organ¬
ized. Where are the " symbols of faith, called creeds,"
which were " points of union among Christians" in the
Apostolic age? Are they the New Testament? If so,
fyad they no " Church government?" Or if not, how comes
it that those who have the same constitution which they had,
have " what is inaccurately styled . . . Church govern-
-ment?" To such absurdities are " even good but falli¬
ble men" driven, who, forsaking the inspired rule, " hew
out to themselves cisterns, broken cisterns that can
hold no ^ater." However, for his decided proclivity to
" look upon the Christian enterprize, and sweet piety
of many of our members," we are greatly obliged. And
we assure him that similar characteristics among our
Methodist brethren ever have, an,d ever will, we trust,
awaken our kindest Christian regards, their Episcopacy
to the contrary notwithstanding.
August 16th, 1855.
We accept our brother's explanation of the charge of
" falsehood." The point of our complaint was in refer¬
ence to the facts we had stated, not the arguments we
had used.
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
.213
We have waited several weeks on Brother Hamill,
and received nothing more from him; and as the Asso¬
ciations and Fall Meetings are at hand, and as we ex¬
pect to attend a number of them, we desire to close the
discussion as early as possible. Without any further
delay, therefore, we publish the following as our last
article:
THE CONTRAST.
The contrast between Methodist Episcopacy and our civil govern¬
ments, State and National, in seventeen distinct and fundamental
points; The Methodist Episcopal Church the only denomination
of Protestants in the United States, from whose ecclesiastical
bodies all laymen are "excluded by constitutional law; Not a fact
contested which has "been alleged in the discussion; The "Demo¬
cratic element " in Episcopal Methodism, if it exists at all, must
exist notwithstanding all these facts; Synopsis and application of
the argument; Conclusion.
Letter to Messrs. David Clopton, John B. Bilbro, and Robert L.
Mayes.
" Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion ovgr them, and they
that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you."—Je¬
sus Christ.
" Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself.
Can he then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the
form of kings, to govern him? Let history answer this question."—Thomas Jeffer¬
son, the Apostle of American Republicanism.
" As long as I live, the People shall have no share in choosing either stewards or
leaders among the Methodists. We have not. nor e,ver had, any such custom. We are
no Republicans, and never intend to be."—John Wesley, the Apostle of American
Methodism.
We come now to the interesting task of tracing the
contrast between our Republican institutions and Me-
214
A DISCUSSION ON
thodist Episcopacy. Brother Hamill has given us the
" striking analogy"-*—we propose presenting the oppo¬
site side. And let us again begin at the beginning.
First. Tne Constitution of the United States, and the
Constitutions of each Sta'te of the confederacy, were
formed by representatives chosen by the People in their
sovereign capacity. The Constitution, or Book of "Dis¬
cipline and Doctrines" of the Methodist Episcopal Church
was formed by sixty clej-gymen, appointed and sum¬
moned to their work by two Englishmen, Asbury and
Coke. There was not a single layman, or a layman's
representative, in the Conference of 1184, that drafted
it. "They admitted no constituency." "They were absolutely
an aristocracy."*
Secondly. The Constitution of the United States, and
of each State, when drafted by their several Conven¬
tions of representatives from the people, were, by spe¬
cial ordinances, submitted back directly to the People
for their ratification. The Constitution of Methodist
Episcopacy was adopted and forced upon their (we wish
we could say "constituency,"-but by the decision of the
United States Circuit Coiirt, " they have no constituen¬
cy,") membership without even the form of a voluntary
recognition of such power as wag assumed by said Con¬
ference. No layman was ever asked to cast his suf¬
frages by way of adopting that document.
Thirdly. Amendments 'to the Constitution of the United
States, and of the several States, Jbefore they are con¬
sidered binding, are submitted to their respective con¬
stituencies for their ratification: Amendments to the
* Ch. Prop. Case, page 331.
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
215
Constitution of Methodist Episcopacy, though more or
less of them are made" at every General Conference,
we believe, are foisted upon the Churches, nolens volens,
by the mere prerogative of this body. In this, also,
" they admit no constituency—they have no constituency."*
Fourthly. The President and Vice President of the1
United States, and the Governor (of each State, the
highest officers recognized4 by the General and State
governments, are chosen directly by the People every
two, three, and four years, thereby securing a frequent
reckoning with these" officers, and preventing any abuse
of the power thus delegated to them: The bishops of the
Methodist Episcopal Church are chosen for life, or dur¬
ing good behavior, by the clergy who compose the General
Conference, and who, when assembled, " represent them¬
selves, and have no constituents." The^ are " responsible
only to their own consciences " for the manner in which
they exercise their " unlimited ecclesiastical and tem¬
poral power."
Fifthly. The Congress of the United States, and the
Legislatures of the several States, are composed of del¬
egates elected by the suffrages of the several States, or
by the people of the several States, and hold their pffices
one, two, three, and six years, and are, therefore, re¬
sponsible directly to the people for their official conduct:
The Annual and Quadrennial Copferences of the Methods
ist Episcopal Church are composed, ex officio, u of the
bishops and travelling preachers," and their' representa¬
tives. No layman of the Methodist Episcopal Church
ever cast a single ballot for a representative to either a
State or a General Conference.
* Appendix to Prop. Case, page 11.
216
A DISCUSSION ON
Sixthly. In our civil institutions, the basis of repre¬
sentation is the entire population of the United States,
and of each respective State, except in the Senate of
the United States, in which, for wise purposes, the sov¬
ereignty of each State is represented: In the Methodist
Episcopal Church, the basis of representation is the
travelling clergy in the bounds of each State.
Seventhly. The Congress of the United States, and
the Legislature of each respective State, admit and re¬
present a constituency, to whom they are responsible
for their acts and doings: But the bishops and travel¬
ling preachers in the Methodist Episcopal Church,
" comprise the embodiment of its power, ecclesiastical and
temporal; and when assembled in General Conference,
according to the usage and discipline of the Church,
represent themselves a^d have no constituents." So affirms
Judge Nelson, in Property case.
Eighthly. Our civil Constitutions recognize a checks
and balances "—tribunals to " correct errors and rectify
wrongs,"—thus affording relief to the injured and op¬
pressed sufferer: In the Constitution of the Methodist
Episcopal Church, "the will" of the circuit rider, or
elder, or bishop, in removing an officer, " is omnipotent
in the premises"—if an incumbent "is unjustly removed,
he must submit"—since " there is no tribunal to cure the
error or rectify the wrong." So affirms ex-bishop'
Hamline.
Ninthly. In our State and National governments, the
people possess and exercise the right, directly or indi¬
rectly, to choose every officer, Legislative, Executive,
and Judicial, to enact, expound, and administer law,
from the President of the-United States down to the
most humble functionary recognized in our civil polity:
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
.211
In the system of Methodist Episcopacy, the bishopfe and
travelling preachers appoint every officer from a bishop
down to a.class-leader, "being responsible only to their
own consciences " for the manner in which this*author-
ity is exercised. Their " will is omnipotent in the
premises."
Tenthly: The right of petition for redress of griev¬
ances, is clearly recognized by the Constitution- of the
United States, and of each State. But when such a
right is attempted to be exercised by the local preach¬
ers and private members of the Methodist Episcopal
Church, the lea^t privilege which any form of govern¬
ment can recognize^ the bishops*of that Church answer:
"Pardon us if we know no such rights, if we comprehend no
such privileges
Eleventhly: The government of the United States, and
of each State, is a government cf the people and their chosen
representatives—a Democratic Republic: The Methodist
Episcopal Church, " as regards its government," says
the Hon. R. Johnson, in his speech, in the " Church Pro¬
perty Case," "has been absolutely, since the days of Wesley,
AN ARISTOCRACY! Laymen have haci, and now havet
no voice in it." "If there is a layman within the sound
of my voice," continues Mr. Johnson, " he knows he has
no voice now."—Property Case; p. 331.
Twelfthly: Congress, and pur State legislatures, are
bodies of limited powers; they have no authority what¬
ever to change pr modify our present forms of civil go¬
vernment: The General Conference of thn Methodist
Episcopal Church, is "the source and fountain of all its
* Circular of Gen. Con. of 1824.
19
218,
A DISCUSSION ON
temporal power," says Judge Nelson; nay,it "compris¬
es the embodiment of its power, ecclesiastical and temporal
It is "a body unlimited in its authority to create," says
Mr. Johnson, and "equally unlimited in the authority to
destroy; responsible only to their consciences for the
manner in which either authority is exercised." " If
that body had chosen to become Socinian," says Mr.
Lord, one of the counsel for the claimants—" if it had
chosen to adopt the presbyterfan or Baptist forms, either
of government or doctrine, it was in its power to do it; there
was no limit. They represented the Church; they were
the Church The laity were not known in the
governing body. Matters of doctrine, discipline, and
everything, were in the governing body. If that was
so up to 1808, what was that body after that period?
It was the same General Conference."—Property Case, p.
168.
Thirteenthly: The first paragraph of the constitution
of the United States, alleges that "We, the people of the
United States, in order to form a more perfeet union,
establish justice, ensure "domestic tranquillity, provide
for the common defence, promote the general welfare,
and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our
posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for
the United States of America." The first section of the-
"Book of Discipline" alleges that, as Mr. Wesley " pre¬
ferred the Episcopal mode of Church government to any
other, he solemnly set apart', by the impQsition of hands
and prayer .... Thomas Coke, LL.D a presbyter
of the Church of England, for the Episcopal office; and
having delivered to him letters of Episcopal orders, commission¬
ed and directed him to set apart Francis Asbury, ....
METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 219
for the same Episcopal office." That is, the people of the
United State's established their form of government:
One man, John Wesley, according to the Discipline, autho¬
rized the establishment of the government of the Me¬
thodist Episcopal Church. The truth of this statement
in regard to* Mr. Wesley's ordaining Dr. Coke " to the
Episcopal office," we have already examined, and, as we
think, proved it to be entirely inexact; but as the govern¬
mental economy of that Church is to b6 ascertained by
the Discipline, it is right and proper that we should re¬
fer to all its statements in this connection, as if they
were true.
Fourteenthly: In the government of the United States,
and of each separate State, the legislative, executive,
and judicial departments of government, are placed in
the hands of three distinct classes of officers, each operat¬
ing as a. check upon the others. Thus, the -President of
the United States, and the governor of each State, being
elected by the people, and therefore representing their
sovereignty, possess the veto power to check hasty or
unconstitutional legislation. And Congress and State
legislatures possess the power of passing a law by a
two-third vote, notwithstanding the veto of the chief
executive, thus interposing a salutary check upbn this
prerogative. And the judiciary, being the exponent of
the constitutionality of all* laws, becomes another check
upon the legislative department. But ill the Methodist
Episcopal Church, the legislative, executive, and judi¬
cial departments of government are all in the same
hands. And this body of men are not the representa¬
tives of the people, but, as Judge Nelson declares,
" when assembled in Conference, represent themselves, and
220
A DISCUSSION ON
have no constituents." "Where such a body of. men,"
says the late Bishop Bascom, "first make the .laws, then
execute them, and, finally, are the sole judges of their
own acts, there, is no liberty• the people are virtually en¬
slaved, and liable to be ruined at any time."—Rights, &c.
Art. 6. In a .word; all power, legislative, executive,
and judicial, known in the governmental economy of
that Church, is lodged in the hands of its clergy. "Not
a modicum of power," says Mr. Johnson, " was left else¬
where."
Fifteenthly: The great fundamental principle which
lies at the basis of our civil governments, State and
National, is, that they arp representative. In the Me¬
thodist Episcopal Church, in 1824 and 1828„ an effort
was made by numerous petitioners, local preachers and
private members, to modify their form* of government,
so as to make it representative, and the memorialists
were sternly rebuked -by the bishops of that Church, in
the very language of despotism itself: "Pardon us if we
know no such rights, if we comprehend no such privileges!''
The only efforts which have ever been made to incor¬
porate into its economy the essential element of Repub¬
licanism, have been and are now denounced as schism-
atical, and it's ptfbmotprs suspended and expelled from
the ministry and "Church; and yet there is a most
striking analogy between Methodist Episcopacy and
our Republican form of government!! Nay, further, if
a man doubts its Republicanism, he is to be denounced
as a " bigot," a " demagogue," and sundry other amiable
epithets must be applied to him by the champions of
this hierarchy! Now, we do solemnly protest, that a
man's Christian charity ought not to be measured by the
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
221
dimensions of his throat to swallow "our Episcopacy 1"
We do protest that it is possible for a man to base his
love for his fellow Christians upon some other " points
of union" besides this " system of surpassing energy"-1—
that he may love their virtues without endorsing their
errors—and that personal piety may be one thing, and
clerical absolutism may be a different thing.
Sixteenthly. Our civil Constitutions, State and Na¬
tional; recognize the principle, " That all power is inherent
in the people:" In the Methodist economy, all power is in¬
herent^ in the clergy.—" If they had chosen to Jbecome
Socinian .... they could have done so. There was no
limit," said Mr. Lord. Property-Case, p. 163.
Seventeenthly. In our civil government, the property
is held by the people, and even the small pittance which
is used for State and National purposes, is subject to
the direction of their representatives: In the Methodist
Episcopal Church, the Church property is held and dis¬
posed of by the clefgy. Even the trustees who hold
the property, are to be appointed by the "preacher
in charge, or the presiding elder of Ihe district, all of
whom are to he members of the Methodist Episcopal
Church." Discipline, last edition, p. 218. The appoint¬
ment of these trustees is the amount of "lay representa¬
tion and laj management" of which our brother so
frequently boasts. This " lay representation and lay
management" amounts to about as much as the " re¬
presentation and management" of ordinary clerks 4n a
mercantile establishment. They can only exeeute the
orders of the bishops and clergy of the General or State
Conferences. This every reader can see by turning to
the Discipline, pp. 209, 214 and pp. 256, 25T.
222
A DISCUSSION ON
We could trace this contrast much further; hut the
foregoing points are deemed sufficient for our present
purpose. We will only add, in closing this part of the sub¬
ject, THAT THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH,
IS THE ONLY- DENOMINATION OF PROTEST¬
ANTS ON THIS CONTINENT, FROM WHOSE EC-
- CLESIASTICAL COUNSELS ALL LAYMEN ARE
EXCLUDED BY CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. If a line
were drawn upon the subject of Church government
between all professing Christians in this country, on
one side of it would be arrayed the Methodist Episcopal
and the Roman Catholic communions—on the other all
other Protestant "denominations. To what extent Me¬
thodists are charmed with their company, and how long
they will keep it the future must show. We have not
placed Methodism there. This was the work of its first
apostles. We have only hung the lamp ofi-truth over
the arcana of the system, and are not responsible for its
revelations. Other hands must apply the corrective.
The reader wile observe, that not -one fact that we
have alleged in connection with the origin and history
of Episcopal Methodism in this country, has ever been
contested by Brother HAmill. He has attempted to
show that some of our deductions were illogical and un¬
charitable. The facts he has not pretended to meet.
He has occupied the most of his time and space in de¬
ploring in quite pathetic terms, the "Munster insurrec¬
tion,1' "closp communion," and "Baptist anarchy." Of
course, if he thus permit "judgment to. go by default;"
if, having of his own free will taken issue with us upon
a plain, practical question, he kees proper, to leave ts to
discuss that question, and busies himself with other is-
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
223
sues which have no more to do with thd one he set out
to discuss than the Eastern war has to do with the state
of the weather, it is not our concern. It only shows tbe
utter impossibility of harmonizing Methodist Episcopacy
with the genius of our free institutions. And now, if
the " Democratic element" really does exist in the go¬
vernmental economy of Methodism, it must exist in that sys¬
tem notwithstanding all these facts. That is to say, it must
exist in a system orgovernment, the basis of whose re¬
presentation in its ecclesiastical councils is, not the nu¬
merical strength of the membership, but the travelling
clergy; whose constitution was adopted wholly by the
ministry, without so much as submitting it to its mem¬
bership; whose rulers, when assembled in General Con¬
ference, according to the usage and discipline of the
Church, represent themselves, and "have no constitu¬
ents;" which is "absolutely an aristocracy;" whose func¬
tionaries can remove all inferior officers without the
forms of trial, the removed party having no alternative
but submission, there being "no tribunal to cure the er¬
ror or rectify the wrong;" whose bishops, in answer to
respectful petitions, to make the system Republican, that
is, representative, use the very language of despotism it¬
self—"Pardon us if we know no such ri'ghts, if we com¬
prehend no such privileges"—whose ecclesiastical coun¬
cils are "unlimited in the authority to create, and
equally unlimited in the authority to destroy; fesponsi-
ble only to their own consciences for the manner in
which either is exercised;" whose legislators possess
the power, according to Mr. Lord, to change the whole
Methodist denomination into a " Socinian" body; whose
government, according to the Discipline, originated with
224
A DISCUSSION ON
ope man, Mr. Wesley; whose legislative, executive,
and judicial powers are vested in the same men, there
not being "a modicum of power left elsewhere;" who, in
direct contravention of that vital principle which lies at
the basis of our government, that all power is inherent
in the people," place all "ecclesiastical power" in the
hands of the travelling clergy; whose chief officers, the
bishops, possess the power .of sending six thousand min¬
isters to any and every part of the'country, from Maine
to California, and from -Florida to Oregon, nolens volens,
regardless, too, as to whether such arbitrary appoint¬
ments shall comport with the wishes of those who are
to support them; and finally, whose funds and property
are under the supreme control of the same ecclesiastical
bodies, composed entirely of the clergy; we say, the
'•'Democratic element" must exist in this system, if it
has any existence at all in it, notwithstanding all these
facts! No,. Brother Hamill, the system of Episcopal
Methodism may, like some forms of government in Eu-
ropej be "a system of surpassing energy!" And to
those who look upon "energy" as the "sine qua non" of
government, it maybe " worthy of all eulogy!" But,
whatever other virtues "oiir Episcopacy" may possess,
and we»shall not undertake to say but what they are
many, we do think that so far as " Democracy" -and "Be-
publi-canism" are virtues, "It is weighed in the balances
and found wanting." What principle in the govern¬
mental economy of Methodism would have to be com-
promitted, to change this government into an aristo¬
cracy, or even monarchy? Suppose our legislators,
State and National, should take it upon themselves to
form our civil government after the model of Episcopal
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
225
Methodism, is there one man in a million who would
pretend to call it a "Democratic Kepublican govern¬
ment?" A system of government "which admits no
constituents—which has no constituepts-:-which is ab¬
solutely an aristocracy"—such a system a Democratic
Eepublican government, forsooth! Why, the virgin
form of the "goddess of American liberty," rising up out
of that system, would be the greatest monstrosity that
ever* haunted the distorted fancy of Brother HamilPs
opium-eater! He who can evolve Democracy from such
a system of polity, would .find no difficulty, we opine, in
lifting the stone of Sisyphus from its depth profound,
and rolling it to the top of the Dwahalagiri mountain.
We have accomplished our task, with what success it
becomes us not to say. We have not adduced a single
fact but what has been sustained by evidence the most
conclusive; hor have we used a single argument which
was intended to have any more weight with the reader
than it had on our o^n mind. Truth—not victory, has
been our aim. And as truth is alwdys consistent with
itself; as it can, above all things else in the universe,
afford to be magnanimous, we have freely and cheerfully
opened our columns for the full and unreserved discus¬
sion of the governmental efconomy of the Methodist
Episcopal Church. Controversy, conducted in a right
spirit, is by far the most successful method of develop¬
ing and establishing the truth, for the obvious reason—
that the, statements of the parties interested, are each subjected to
the most rigid scrutiny; and whatever survives such an
ordeal, is recognized by the historian as reliable mate¬
rial for his work. Many of the important facts which
are connected with the origin atld history of' Episcopal
226
A DISCUSSION ON
Methodism in this country, never would be brought out
before the public mind but for discussions of this kind.
We disclaim all sympathy with that sickly cant among
many professing Christians, which affirms that religious
controversy is essentially and always &n evil. And as
we do not believe that Methodist Episcopacy has any
higher claims upon, implicit popular credulity than any
other systegi of ecclesiastical polity of equal pretensions
and age, we have not thought it sacrilege to discuss its
claims to the confidence and support of American citizens.
This tve have done to the best of our ability. Sincerely
wishing that the cause of truth and righteousness may
be subseryed by this discussion, we here lay down our
pen.
Letter to Messrs. David Clopton, 'John B. Bilbro, and
* Robert L. Mayes.
Respected Brethren:
As your names appeared on the original communica¬
tion from your honored pastor, which sprung this dis¬
cussion, you will excuse me for the liberty I take in
addressing you a few words on its conclusion. On read¬
ing that communication, I could not regard it in any
other light .than as a formal demand that I should either
repudiate the article from the Western Watchman, or de¬
fend it. It is due to myself to State, that the article was
selected and published in the paper by my late worthy
associate, several days before I saw it. Indeed, up to
the time of the receipt, of your communication, I had
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
221
not read it, being absent from home in attendance npon
the Georgia Baptist Convention. Immediately, there¬
fore, after reading the article, I did repudiate that por¬
tion of it which I deemed justly offensive to your deno¬
mination. But as I could not extend this reprehension
to that portion of it which referred to the governmental
econpmy of your Church, as an isolated topic of discus¬
sion, I chose the latter alternative—I chose to defend
it. I am sure, you, brethren, will not blame me for using
such facts in this controversy as your own history has
furnished to my hand. True, I have been abused, mis¬
represented, and slandered by some members of your
Church, in the public prints and otherwise, for daring
to discuss this subject. But I beg to assure you, that
I do not bold you, nor the large, intelligent, .and pious
denomination of Christians to which you belong, respon¬
sible for this unkind treatment. Indeed, your worthy
pastor has expressed time and again, his decided dis¬
approbation of such conduct. And it affords me pleasure
thus publicly to bear testimony to the excellent spirit
which has marked his course through this discussion.
I shall ever cherish for him the kindest and best of
Christian feelings. I trust I have not been wanting in
reciprocal courtesy.
It would be indelicate in me to appeal to you to de¬
cide how far I have succeeded in maintaining the pro¬
position upon which your pastor took issue with me.
The result is before a much more unerring and august
tribunal than either party immediately interested in the
discussion—an enlightened and generous public opinion.
With the award of that tribunal, it would be madness in
me not to acquiesce.
228
A DISCUSSION ON
Permit me to say, in conclusion, that I was unwilling
to take the position I did in the opening of this contro¬
versy, wfthout sustaining %it by what I believed to be
ample testimony drawn from the most authentic sources.
This I could not do within a shorter compass than I
have occupied. As I assumed the onus probandi, I was
unwilling to stop short of that measure and kind of,tes¬
timony which I believed would sustain my allegation j
and .having reached that point, the discussion, so far as
I am concerned, is closed. Wishing you grace, mercy,
and peace, I am, brethren, without any abatement,
Your friend and brother in'Christ,
SAM'L. HENDERSON.
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
229
.LETTER tl,
THE METHODIST BOOK CONCERN* -y A VALUA¬
BLE AUXILIARY-OF THE GOSPEL j- AND A
HOLY CHARITY; HON. RUFUS* CHOlTE'S
VIEW OF METHODISM $ THE. CONTRAST
REVIEWED.
Mr. Lord's history of the Book Concern; Bnilt up by the preachers,
and therefor#, held in trust by them for two holy uses; 'Its cha¬
rity like Job; Ms control by the ministry praiseworthy; The mu¬
tilated resolution; The Court decrees that the General Conference
has no proprietary interest in the Preaching Houses; Lay man¬
agement of the largest revenue of the Church.
PRINCIPLES OF THE CHURCH PROPERTY CASE.
Do civil lawyers"hnderstand Church polity better than judicious
ministers? Legal opinions ^versus Church standard; Louisville
Conventions; Dr. Elliott and Hon. Rufus.Choate against a legal
Fiction; The Church, South, did not* recover its rights upon false
principles; The case stated; Principles applicable to the Book
Concern property, a-nd inapplicable to Church polity; Plgadings
of counsel; Consent of a majority in all- departments of the Church
to a division of the Book Concern Ftod; Plan of separation con¬
tingent; Power ascribed to General Conference wholly unfound¬
ed; The veto power of an Annual Conference; Protest of laity
in the case of a distinguished minister of the Georgia Conference;
Lawyers' opinion of a Church in the Methodist sense; Notion that
20
230
A DISCUSSION ON
the General Conference could become Socinian, or Baptist; Min¬
isters of every Church can become Mohammedans; Another could
and would; Methodist doctrines not established by vote; The
glory of Christ cannot be voted away; Mr. Benson's testimony;
Louisville CQnvention; Opinion of the most distinguished lawyer
in the United States, the Hon. RUfus Choate; Methodism proceeds
on the plan of our .grand secular union; The true sovereign; The
preachers in a mass, acting in obedience to the wishes of the people;
The Conference which organized Methodism was, in a remarkable
degree^ analogous to the Convention which created the Federal
Constitution, in 1787; Annual and General Conferences subord¬
inate agencies of the Church; Mr. Wesley testifies that some thous¬
ands in the United States desired his advice; Eighty-three preach¬
ers cannot be magnified into some thousands; Mr. Choate's only
error; The case proves the all-controlling power of the iaity.
MISCELLANEOUS.
Why MunceUs proclamation is quoted; Baptists not ranked with
Campbgllites; Concurrence with Baptist luminaries; An answer;
Another serious error; Constituents ofthe Quarterly Conference;
The preacher has no vote in the trial -of a member; Logic of the
exposure of Baptist disorders.
THE CONTRAST.
Th,e contrast twice dead; The Church legislates in minor matters
only; 'Distinction between the province of human and olivine
legislation; How the discipline was formed; Conference laws like
Acts of Legislatures; discipline not amended; Duality .of Gen¬
eral Conference jurisdictions demanded by the people; Bishop's
term of office like that of the supreme judges; -Subject ta a like
impeachment; General Conference constituted like the United
State! Senate; Is one State nearly equal to thirteen in the South¬
ern Baptist Convention? Bishop's power of removal less than the
President's; Officers of Methodism chosen as directly from the
people as civil officers; Thp right of petition as unbounded as in
Congress; An absurdity exposed^ Mi-. Wesley's advice; Bishops
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
231
have no legislative powers; Restrictions uponlAnnual and Gen¬
eral Conferences; "What would dethrone Christ as King in Zion;
The; only right of the clergy in "Church buildings; The contrast
and the analogy*both exist ih their proper places; A pleasant
close; The discussion useful; The pious will do good anywhere;
#Charity indispensable; The publication of the discussion, without
note or -comment, proposed.
"Tt shall even be as when 3. hungry man dreameth, and" behold heeateth, bnt he
awaketh and his soul is eihpty; or as when a.thirsty man dreameth,and behot'd he tfrink-
eth. but he awaketh and behold.be is.faint. So shall the multitude be -^ho fight
against Mount Zion."-<-lsAiA-H.
Brother Henderson:
Attention to the higher duties ©f the ministry, in con¬
nection with a revival in my own charge,, and camp
meeting labor abroad, with the! conviction that my posi¬
tion has bfeen fully established in this controversy:
namely, that Methodism fs Republicanism of the high¬
est excellence, has delayed*my answer to your article
on the Book Concern Property Case, and the principles
involved in its adjudication, so far as they bear upon
the question under discussion.
An analysis of these principles, vYill giye increased
support to toy pbsftion. A brief history of this case, is
necessary to a correct understanding of them. It is
furnished to nay hand, by Mr, Lord. He says: "When
Methadisnuwas organized as- a separate Church, in ad¬
dition to the meaiis of instruction afforded by preaching,
it was very obvious that a great want: was to be sup¬
plied in the furnishings of religious literature to its peo¬
ple 5 and one of their preachers organized a system of
publishing books in this cottntry. It was originally es¬
tablished in Philadelphia. This preacher, whose name
232
A DISCUSSION ON
was Cooper, lent a small sum of money to the object,
and invested it in books. They were sold among the
denomination; and out of the profits a Small capital
was gradually formed, which was employed in publish¬
ing books. This came to be a matter of some magnitude,
and in 1836, it had been removed to New York, and
^become an extensive establishment. It was then de¬
stroyed by fire, and afterward remvigorated, and from
that time to the present, it has gone on with great
prosperity, so that it has accumulated a capital of about
$150,000. It was early provided thaft the preachers
should see that their congregations were supplied with
books.
"They were very faithful men; stimulated not by -a
love of gain, but by the higher purpose of religious de¬
votion. Of course, a fund thus constructed, could not
but become considerable. Your honors will have your
attention called to the fact, that it was really the result
of the devotion and services of the preachers. It was
not like many charitable funds, a fund growing out of
the donations of wealthy men, but it wa^ in. its main
features the earnings of .this system. Its profits, after
providing capital enough to. carry on its business suc¬
cessfully, were devoted at an early period to one single
purpose, in two or three branches. That purpose wak,
the making up of the deficiences of travelling preachers
and providing for the supernumerary, superannuated
preachers, the wives and children of preachers, and the
widows and orphans of deceased preachers.—(Church
Property Case, p. 1 and 2.) It was a charity which
grew out of actual laborious, self-denying, beneficial
services, just as much as any savings' bank or life in-
METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 233
surance.'—(p. 152.) Every preacher was an agent in the
diffusion of the literature of the Church; a wise—very
wise plan—^ wise for the people, and wise for the govern¬
ment of the Church. But it was the act of the preach¬
ers; it was the labor of the preachers that made this
the great Book Concern which if ever name to be. This
was a business most strictly and directly connected
with the ministry of thig Church, calling not only for ac¬
tivity and labor on their part, but 'pecuniary accounta¬
bility pn the part of every preacher, in every Methodist
circuit.—(p„ 154.) It was intended to create a fundfor
the first great object of enlightening this Methodist com¬
munity as to religious truth; and that the second great
object Was, that when this institution should be carried
out, the preachers themselves might have some- little
stimulus for activity, and that they should be entitled
to look for an* absolute support from this fund for the
wants of old age, and the ■vvants of their dependents, and
the wants of their poor and -suffering brethren. I ask,
if there ever was & fund which proyided §o equitably
and justly, a retiring pension fpr those men, who for a
trifling salary, not enough, to pay for a fashionable din¬
ner, served year after year in the Wilderness, hnd spent
their best days in toil.—(p. 155.) It was a retiring
pension, or sayings' hank for the supernumerary and
worn out preachers, and their widows and orphans."—-
(p. 15J0
The' foregoing extracts from Mr. Lord's speech, show
us both the ground and the hind of right to property in
the Book Coneern*, held by the travelling preachers of
the Methodist Church. First: That the right to it grew
out of the fact, that it was mainly the product of their
234
A DISCUSSION ON
own earnings, from -a small capital created by them¬
selves, and by themselves managed tinder all the pecu¬
niary liabilities to which business of every sort is sub¬
ject. *And secondly: That this Book. Concern property
was held by them in trust for two distinct and specified
purposes, and cannot be alienated by them for any other
uses whatever; no, not even for any other religious en-
terprizes. These objects are, first, the diffusion of reli¬
gious knowledge, and then the relief of indigent and
distressed preachers^ and the widows and orphans of
deceased preachers. The first-named of these objects,
all must pronounce a laudable Christian enterprize, emi¬
nently worthy <3f a band of gospel ministers, and the se¬
cond, a holy charity, which, like Job, "Becomes eyes to
the blind, and feet to ,the lame, and a father to the poor,
and brings the blessing of him who was ready to perish
upon those who managqit; and causeth the widow's
heart tp sing for joy." Of this latter object of the Book
Concern, Mr. Lord says; "Now, until we get to the be¬
neficiaries, we- find no person having anything but a
mere administrative right—a mere agency, and, as to
selection, no discretion."—(p. 149.) Mr, Wood says>
(p. 319) "The Methodist Church are not the benefici¬
aries, they are the managers' of this charity, for the sake
of others—they have no right to apply it to any other
interest in the Church, or at least so much of it as may
be required to fulfill the end designed, to supply the
beneficiaries." Said I not true, then, that property thus
created, and held for such holy uses, is a valuable auxi¬
liary pf the gospel, and a holy charity? Can any ration¬
al man pronounce such an institution, contemplating
such holy ends, anti-Republican?! f Does the fact that
METHODIgT EPISCOPACY.
235
the capital was created by preachers, that its increase
was the profit of their labors, and that this holy charity
is administered by preachers to their suffering breth¬
ren, th6ir widows and orphans, constitute it anti-Repub¬
lican? No, brother Henderson, it is not only not anti-
Republican, but, it merits more praise than t© coldly
affirm it is in harmony with Republicanism. The law¬
yers who called it a wise institution, might have added*
it was one of the holiest and most benevolent instltu-
»
tions in the land. Suppose yourself and a score of Bap¬
tist preachers began a noble enterprise of this kind, fur¬
nished a small eapital fdr the-purpose, assumed the re¬
sponsibilities, and jdevoted the profits of your labors to
such blessed uses; what wpuld you, what could you
think of the soundness of judgment*Of .tha^man, who
sliQuld denounce this wise design* as1 anti-Republican?
"Would you not say, "Friend, you are mistaken; some
strange prejudice has blinded your mind,»or ypu would
commend and not censure our noble object; if we. as
ministers, choose to devote a portion of our "means and
Of our labor to the work of offering you a holy literature,
and give a portion of, our earnings to reljeve the dis¬
abled veterans of the cross* who have ministered unto us
in holy things, whose right have We infringed, that you
should consider us as enemies of our land? We have
wronged no man; we have defrauded no man. If you,
as laymen, are emulous of imitating our holy example,
what hindereth you,? Go, write, publish,"and circulate
a holy literature* and expend your profits upon what¬
ever noble objects "of charity you see proper, and 'we
do rejoice therein, yea, and will rejoice.'" Who
would deny the justice of this rebuke? None; not one.
236
A DISCUSSION ON
Such, then, is my reply to any who gainsay the fact,
that the Book Concern^ no matter whether the ministry
or the laity administer its holy uses, is a valuable auxi¬
liary of the gospel, and a holy charity.
In the above explanation of the character of the Book
Concern property, I have frankly admitted that it is
held, not by the bishops, but by the entire body of itiner;
ants, for specified uses,; and that" no, other department
of our Church has the smallest control over it. I do not
only defend this right of "the preachers to manage- this
charity of their own creation, although none but the in¬
digent beneficiaries are enriched" by it one farthing, but
I warmly eulogize the scheme, and with a free heart.
Nevertheless, with equal frankness and boldness, I un¬
equivocally, deny that our bishops or our Conferences
have any similar property in our Churches,. &&.; or that
they have even the shadow of a shade of any kind of
property in our Churches, or any other right beyond the
privilege of appointing preachers' to them from our An¬
nual Conferences.
I challenged you in a former letter, to publish, the
deed of any ^Methodist Church in the land; the record
was at hand; you couTd have seen it at any moment
You did not choose to do it, but quoted-in part,„and re¬
member, only in part, a resolution passed at the General
Conference, in view of a probable division of the Church.
The part of the resolution ydiich you omitted, gave a
sense Entirely different from what seems to he the mean¬
ing of your mutilated extract. The resolution is as. fol¬
lows: "That all the property of the AtethoHist Episcopal
Chtirch, in meeting-houses, parsonages, -colleges} &c.,
within the limits of the Southern organization, shall he
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
231
forever free from any claim sfet up on the part pf the Me¬
thodist Episcopal Church, so far as -this resolution can he
of force in the premises? Does this resolution justify your
declaration, that the bishops and clergy assumed an ab¬
solute proprietorship in, and a right to dispose of, ail the
churched, schools/colleges, &c., of the Methodist Epis-
Capal Church in the United ^States? Loot at jt again,
and particularly look at the emphatic clause* which you
neglected to quote, which omission changes entirely
the sense of the resolution, namely: " so far as this reso-•
lution can he of force in the premises. How far eould it
have been of force in the premises? Why, just *so far
as to release the Southern Churohes from the claim the
Church, North, could have set up. What claim did the
Church, North, think they could possibly have set up
over the property in Southern Churches? Simply this,
and this alone, and not the shadow of a claim beyond
this: that if the Southern Methodist Churoh had beep
declared a secession by the Court* and the CJiurch, North,
had been so minded, they'could, had not this resolution
interdicted it, have appointed preachers to these
Churches. This id the sole point referred to in this re¬
solution. Jhe only night ever claimed by our bishops
or Conferences, wi our church buildings, is the right of
sending Methodist preachers—created such by the laity,
and by them recommended for the itinerancy—to preach
the gospel in these buildings. The lawyers say (p. 208)
" That body (General Conference) had, however, no pro-,
prietory interest in the preaching houses, a)id cou\d only trans¬
fer its jurisdiction over t/iem, which is done by the resolutions,
and the proceedings under them? But our Disciplines are
scattered broadcast over the land; look into them and
238
A DISCUSSION ON
seethe form of our Church" deeds, and let prejudice no
more utter so groundless a charge.
I again repeat, that in all things in which the laity
are equally concerned with the ministry, Methodism has
lay delegation, and lay management, to the fullest exj
tent; in, for instance, Missionary, Tract, Education,
Sunday School, and other Societies, and "in Conference!*
Financial Boards. And that these afe by no means in¬
ferior interests of the Church, you will admit, when I
repeat that the Missionary Society, which has more lay
than clerical managers, disburses anmially by far the
largest revenue of our Church, about $160,000. As for
our College operations, you have an example of them
here in Tuskegee, immediately under your eye. Who,
I ask, are the trustees of our Tuskegee Female College?
Are they preachers? Who are now organizing the fac¬
ulty? Are they preachers? No, you know them, and
have every opportunity to see to what extent laymen
control these interests* But yOu inquire, are mot the
laity equally interested with tkepreaehers in the Book
Concern? I answer, by no means; the preachers, not
the laity, furnished mainly the capital, made the earn¬
ings by their labor, and disburse the profits, not to in¬
digent laymen, but to distressed preachers. Who, then,
should control it? Plainly > those who alone would suffer
from its mismanagement.—Principles of Chureh Pro¬
perty Case.
The foregoing expose of the-character of the property
held by the Methodist Church, will prepare us for an
easy understanding of the principles involved in the
Church Property Case, in which the right of the South¬
ern Church to a due proportion of the Book Concern
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
239
fund, was contested by the Church, J^Torth, under the in¬
fluence of abolition sentiment. J here premise that the
opinions of legal gentlemen, such as the learned coun¬
sel engaged in the Church suit, upon questions such as
the following: What are*the rights of property which
the courts of our country will recognize? are worthy of
the highest respect. But upon questions of Church pol¬
ity, whether in the Methodist, Baptist, or Presbyterian
Churches, those who are not connected with these
Churches, however great their legal attainments, can¬
not possibly understand them as thoroughly, as judi¬
cious ministers of these Churches, who are familiar with
the every day operations of their respective Church
systems.
I have all along in this discussion supported my posi¬
tion from acknowledged Church standards, and not from
the mere opinions of those unconnected with either of
our Churches. You had, the standards of our Chu,rch
before yorq.in the very book whence you extracted these
legal opinions. When you sought to condemn us,, you
should have attempted it from ,thpse standards* Ypur
failure to do this, and your -resor^ to the mere opinions
of only a portion qf the counsel engaged in the case-
opinions which hacl been, in advance, solemnly protested
against by no less an authority than the Louisville
Convention of the Church, South, which protest was ac-,
tually in evidence before the Coju't—and opinions, too,
which were exactly opposite to .the opinions of the most
distinguished .lawyer employed in the c^se, and, indeed,
the most distinguished lawyer in the United States, the
Hon. Rufus Choate, of Boston—and opinions, which
have alpo drawn forth from Br. Elliot, and others, of the
240
A PISCTJSSION «ON
Church, North, hitter condemnation; though yotf seem
4o have strangely mistaken us, in supposing that either
the Northern or Southern Churches silently assented to
these opinions'—this resort; I say, to proof of this de¬
scription, is prima facie evidence of the weakness-of
your ^fuse, and of the groundlessness of your allega¬
tions.
It may be asked then^ did the Church, South, recover
its property upon false principles? I answer, no. There
were principles set forth in the debate, which were false
in their application to all other matters of Church polity,
b-ut true m their application?"to the Book Concern Fund.
With reference to this funB, the entire' travelling minis¬
try of the United Stales had no- constituency—they
were the only body in'the* Church, who had any voice
at all in the disposing offthis fund—tBey were the only
department of the Church which had -any cpntr-ol over
it, and simply because it was of their own creation:
'they "Or ere the Church, in tha governmental sense of the
term, so far -as this fund was concerned, but no farther,
The application of these principles to other matters of
Church polity, was a false statement #of our Church
government, but their application to this fund was just,
and, therefore, the Court righteously adjudged us our
rights in the case.
The case stood thus: The Book Gonpern property was
held by the entire body of travelling ministry, for speci¬
fied-uses. Secondly: The Annual Conferences delegated
to the General Conference their entire control over this
fund, placing upon them but a single restriction, winch
restriction1 was{ that they should carry out the design
of the founders of this charity; namely, that they should
METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 241
not appropriate the produce of this fund to any other
purpose than for the benefit of the beneficiaries therein
described; and so the General Conference became the
manager of this fund, and the Annual Conferences dis¬
bursed the proceeds to the beneficiaries thereof. Thirdly:
The General Conference, thus clothed with full powers,
could have divided, without any separation of the
Church, this fund into two or twenty parts, provided
that the intention of this restrictive article was secured,
that the proceeds were disbursed to the proper benefi¬
ciaries. Fourthly: The division of this fund with the
Church, South, secured the proceeds of it to the very
same beneficiaries, and no cithers, intended, in the re¬
strictive article; and, therefore, the General Conference
had the power to make this division; and in view of
the necessity for separate ecclesiastical jurisdictions',
growing out of the diverse views of the two sections of
the Church upon the slavery question, wisdom dictated
the propriety of-this division of the fund. And, lastly:
The majority of Annual Conferences of the United
States—the only primary bodies having any claim over
this fund—approved of this division; and though the
two-thirds majority required to change the restrictive
article, was not obtained; yet in consideration of the
fact that the design of this article was as effectually
secured after the division of the funds with the Church,
South, as bfefore, it was decided to be no bar to this
division of the property. Therefore, the will of the major¬
ity of the General Conference of 1844, and .the will of the
majority of Annual Conferences which approved of the
measure thereafter, shofild be executed.
21
242
A DISCUSSION ON
The plea set up in bar of this measure was, that the
beneficiaries to whom the Southern Conferences would
distribute these proceeds, did not answer the descrip¬
tion of such in the discipline—they were not members
of the Methodist Episcopjfl Church—they and their Con¬
ferences were a secession from the Methodist Church.
It was replied that, in the Church, South, "there was
no deviation in morals or doctrines, in rites, ceremonies,
or usages—that there is no sort of pretence of any de¬
viation in doctrine, nor anything in morals, in practice,
or in Methodist usages, or that we are heterodox in the
shade of a hair." In everything we are alike; and,
therefore, if the fund were divided with the Southern
Church, it would not promote doctrines contrary to
those cherished by the creators of this charity. We
have done nothing for which we should be stigmatized
as a secession.; we have only asked for a duality of
jurisdictions, instead of an unity of jurisdiction of the
General Conference; and we had weighty reasons for
making this demand.
The preachers representing the Annual Conferences,
and the people in the Northern section of the Church,
declared it was the sentiment of the N orthern people,
that it wduld operate greatly to the prejudice of Me¬
thodism in that section, if a bishop connected with
slavery were permitted to exercise^Episcopal functions
among them—and accordingly suspended a blameless
bishop. Thereupon, the Southern preachers represent¬
ing the Annual Conferences, and the people in the South¬
ern section of the work, knowing the strong indignation
which would inevitably be excited by an attempt to de-
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
243
grade a holy man from the office of bishop, on account
of his connection with slavery, asked that provision
should he made for a separation, contingent upon the
demand of the people of their section for such division.
The preachers representing the Church, North, wisely
conceded that contingent demand, and took all the pre¬
liminary steps necessary to consummate the separation;
provided that the facts which* were to be developed,
proved that the Southern preachers had rightly inter¬
preted public sentiment. They separated—-the South¬
ern preachers returned to their homes. Primary assem¬
blies were* called—as Mr. Fancher, counsel for the North,
said: "The most excited meetings soon occurred in all
parts of the South, and the most indignant resolutions
were passed." With one consent, they demanded an im¬
mediate separation from the Church, North. The con¬
tingency provided for by the General Conference was
become a certainty. And to complete all the steps ne¬
cessary to perfectly exonerate us from the charge of .se¬
cession, the entire body of Annual Conferences took ac¬
tion directly upon the moneyed interests Involved in the
division, and "thus indirectly upon the question of the
division itself; and a majority of them voted that the
Church, South, should have her just proportion of the
funds of the Churchv
Here, then, we have the General Conference consent¬
ing ^o the division, if the sentiment of the people de¬
manded it—the majority of the Annual Conferences of
the United States also consenting to it—the laity of the
entire South demanding it—and the laity of the Church,
North, the only remaining party*in the case, being sa¬
tisfied that their "abolition sentiments had accomplished
244
A DISCUSSION ON
the suspension of Bishop Andrew, and the separation
not affecting their Church relations at all, did not, in
their primary assemblies, raise any voice against, this
division, which they could have done had they seen pro¬
per; and therefore it is only justice to say, that they
also tacitly consented to this division. Thus we see the
majority,, in all the departments of the Church, consent¬
ing to a duality of jurisdictions; and though there was
not two-thirds majority of Conferences, wrongly suppos¬
ed'necessary to a division of the funds of the Church,
yet there was a majority in favor of separate jurisdic¬
tions, and being one in all things else, we are"not, there¬
fore, a schism or secession, and so were righteously ad¬
judged by the Court.
That these were the true principles upon which the
rights of the South rested, aud upon which the Court de¬
cided in favor of the South, though not presented in thia
form, is evident from the fact, that in all the pleadings
of the counsel, there is a constant reference, not only to
the action of the General Conference, but also to the ac¬
tion of the majority of the Annual Conferences, in favor
of the plan of separation, and to the almost universal
demand of the laity of the Southern Church for that se¬
paration. Some, however, of the counsel, and only some
of them, in their zeal to repel the charge of schism from
the Church, South, thought proper, contrary to the opinion
of other counsel to take the position, that the General
Conference had almost enough power to divide the
Church independently of the action of other departments
of the Church. Nevertheless, fearful of the weakness of
this position, they took good eare to show that the en¬
tire laity of the South demanded the separation, and that
a majority of the Annual Conferences sanctioned it.
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
245
Now, the idea that the provision of the" General Con¬
ference for a division of th6 Church, would have been
binding upon the Annual Conferences and the laity, if
public sentiment among them had hot demanded it,* is-
plainly absurd'; for, upon the very face of the articles
of separation, as well as in the debates of that Confer¬
ence, and in the protest of the South, the fact stands out
prominently to view, that the plan of separation was to-
be executed only upon a given contingency; that is, the
laity and ministry of the Southern Church should. de¬
mand it. If this contingency did not become a-fact, the
plan of separation was to be void" and of -no efifdct.
Moreover, the action thought necessary to consummate
the division, was to be laid before all the Annual Confer¬
ences for their assent; and, as Mr. Fancher says: " The
Southern preachers wej;e to feel the pulse of public sentiment,"
and act accordingly. Therefore, the assumption that the
General Conference claimed and possessed the power to
divide the Church,* independently of the Annual Confer¬
ences and of the laity, was wholly gratuitous, and con¬
trary to the facts in the case, and unnecessary for the
support of the just claims of the South.
If the Annual Conferences had vetoed the action of the
General Conference, it would have been a nullity; and
if the laity, in their primary assemblies, had protested
against it, that protest would have been of as much
force, as it was in the case of a distinguished preacher
of the Georgia Conference, who opposed the plan of
separation, and was required to vacate his eharge of
the Columbus station; it would have made the plan null
and void.
240 A DISCISSION ON
Nevertheless I have already admitted thatAn so far
as the control of the Book Concern Bund, which was the
property in suit, wasS- concerned, the preachers who cre¬
ated it had the gole control of jt. They were, with
respect to it, and to ft only, the Church, in a govern¬
mental sense, and had no constituency, in this matter;
and in the management of this fund, the laity had no
voice. But, the same lawyer says, (p. 330,) and as
our discipline- teaches, " The Church, in a Methodistic
sense, is the connexion of good and pious men, who
make the Bible their creed, and Hold fast to that only
which is there expressly disclosed, or may he thereby,
by clear reasoning, established." This is what your
own witness declares to be the Methodistic sense of the
term Church: the very sense of the term Church I am
explaining in my analysis of Methodism. And I am
sure, vefy sure, that I muqh prefer the Methodistic idea
of a Church; to a legal fiction wholly groundless, in fact,
and in theory. And in the Methodistic sense, I know,
no lawyer,- no® any other reader of our discipline, could
affirtn that our itinerant preachers had no constituency,
in the very face Of the fact so plainly stated in our dis-1
cipline, that none can be licensed to preach among us
without the vote of the laity; and none can be received
into the itinerancy without a vote of the laity, recom¬
mending the candidate to be received; so that every
itinerant has been constituted such by two distinct acts
of the laity. The affirmation that the itinerant preach¬
ers had no constituency, must therefore, have been made
in some other than a Methodistic sense;- and if made in
any other than a Methodistic sense, it has nothing to
METHODIST- EPISCOPACY.
247
do with, and should have no place in, a just exposition
of Methodism.
But Mr. Lord said, "If the "General Conference had
chosen to become Socinian, if it had chosen to have
adopted the Presbyterian' or Baptist forms, either of
government or of doctrine, it was in its power to do it."
Most assuredly they could, as individuals controlling
their own action; any member or .members of them, in
our free country, eould have adopted any of the systems
^specified; nay, more; he might with eqtial justice have
Baid, they could hdve» become Mohammedans, or Bndhists;
and so could any member or members of your associationsf or
conventions, or of Presbyterian Synods, or assemblies. The
members of our General Cohference hould have done
this, contrary to. that restrictive article, which you for¬
got to mention, and whic^j. forbids the altering of our
doctrines to the shade of a hair. Still, there is another
could ,and another would too, behind all this matter—th&t
is, the Annual Conferences could haVe taken every one
of these delegates on their return home, and have tried
and expelled them, and they would most certainly have
done it too. If Mr. Lord meant that the members of the
General Conference could have changed so much as a
hair's breadth our articles of faith, even if there had
been no restrictive article forbidding it, and then
escaped ecclesiastical penalties, he was most egregi,-
ously mistaken. »•
A little knowledge of the history of Methodism, would
convince -you, that no General Conference, either in the
United States; or in England, has ever established or
changed our doctrines by vote. We have always acted
on the principle that, we should not add mew doctrines
248
A DISCUSSION ON
to, nor expunge old doctrines from, the Gospel of our
Lord Jesus Christ. We have thought there was some¬
thing of temerity in the idea of voting, for instance,
whether Christ were divine or not—whether he were
the King of kings, and Lord of lords, or a mere worm
of dust. We cannot with so facile a movement, bestow
infinite crowns upon1 Christ, nor tear them from his brow,
and, therefore, do not consent that such doctrines shall
*
be subject to majorities. We propound such truths as
heaven's legislation, and wTioever joins our Church,
thereby declares his faith in them, not as man-made,
but as heaven-revealed truths.
The excellent Mr. Benson says, "Well was it for both
preachers and people, that all their doctrines, and the
essential parts of their discipline, which, taken together,
may be termed the constitution of the Methodists, were
decided upon and recorded before the existence of a Con¬
ference. No member of the Methodist Conference, how¬
ever respectable for parts or piety, would be suffered in
that assembly to make the truth of any doctrine of Me¬
thodism or essential part of- its discipline, a subject of
debate, (Mem. p. 121). And for this sufficient reason,
that God has not imposed upon us the duty of amend¬
ing his" own legislation."
The notion that the General Conference had no limit
to its power but the six restrictive rules, had been
solemnly protested against by the Louisville Conven¬
tion, which organized upon the demand of the laity, the
Church, South, in the following language: a protest
drawn forth by the doctrine that a General Conference
had no restriction upon its power to depose a blameless
bishop. "Very few, indeed, of the more fundamental
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
249
and distinguishing elements of Methodism, deeply and
imperishably imbedded in the affection and veneration
of the Church, and vital to its very existence, are even
alluded to in the restrictive articles. This theory as¬
sumes the self-refuted absurdity, that the General Con¬
ference is in fact the government of the Church, if. not
the Church itself. With no other constitution than these
mere restrictions upon the powers of the General Con¬
ference, the government and discipline of the Methodist
Episcopal Church, as a system of organizing laws and
well-adjusted instrumentalities for the spread of the
gospel, apd the diffusion of piety, and whose living
principles of energy have so long commanded the ad¬
miration of the world, would soon cease even to exist."
(Prop..Case, p. 131). "Such wild and revolutionary
assumptions, so unlike the faith knd discipline of Mer
thodism, as we have been taught them, we are com¬
pelled to regard as fraught with ruin and mischief to
the best interests of the Church," (p. 132.)
The Hon. Rufus Choate, of Boston, the most eminent
lawyer employed in the case, -states correctly the rela¬
tive powers of the several departments of the Church.
He says of what he stylesl "that old, grand, well com¬
pacted, and once beautiful community—the Methodist
Episcopal Church: for the administration of local busi¬
ness it has local judicatories: for the conduct of its ge¬
neral affairs proceeding upon the plan of our grand secular
union, it has a general body."—(p. 264.) So Mr. Choate,
it seems, thought there was a striking analogy between
our Church and the Federal Government; and like sen¬
timents were entertained by John C. Calhoun and Daniel
Webster. Of the organization of American Methodism,
250
A DISCUSSION ON
Mr. Choate justly says: "The true sovereign, then, I
submit, the true sovereign, by which alone it can be de¬
stroyed, may be said to be the preachers in a mass, act¬
ing in obedience to the wishes of the people, in strong
and general demand of the laity for a separate organi¬
zation, through the advice of Mr. Wesley, and upon their
own judgment of expediency and duty, and convened
for the express purpose of doing that work. SO THAT
IT WAS IN" A REMARKABLE DEGREE ANALO¬
GOUS TO THE CONVENTION WHICH CREATED
THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION IN 1181. The
true creator of the Church was the general and col¬
lective will of American Methodism, acting through the
laity, and through the preachers. It was a great eccle¬
siastical Convention of the Methodists of America."—
(p. 268.) "After this Church was created, it had, and
it necessarily must have had, administrative bodies
through which,.in various spheres, to carry on its daily
business. Such are the officers of the Church, such are
the Annual Conferences, spch are the Quarterly Confer¬
ences, and such is, or such, at least, was, in 1792, the
General Conference. These, all of them, are subordinate
executive agencies of the principal, the constituent — the
Church"
That Mr. Choate was correct in his view'of the part
performed by the laity, in the organization of Methodism,
is proved beyond all .question, by Mr. Wesley's letter,
recommending the organization of the American Church,
and by his letters of ordination delivered to Dr. Coke.
He says: "Some thousands of the inhabitants of these
[ United] States desire my advice." And hence he gave
them his views of a scriptural Church. Again: In the
METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 251
ordination letter, he says: "Many of the people in the
Southern provinces of North America desire to continue un-'
der my care." &c.:—(Bang's Church Hist., p. 154.) Now,
you will obserye that, at that time, there were less than
fifteen thousand members, including blacks, and only
eighty-three preachers; therefore, if any man can im¬
peach the veracity of Mr. Wesley, and magnify eighty-
three preachers into some thousands of the inhabitants of
these States, he may then, and not until then, truthfully
deny that the laity had anything to- do with the organi¬
zation of American Methodism.
Mr. Choate's only error in imagining that we had not
legally withdrawn from the Church, North, was, that he
thought a majority of Annual Conferences lpss than two-
thirds, insufficient, and this, with informalities in the
action of the laity, prevented a legal division o'f the
Church; therefore we could not, tinder law, recover our
just rights. But the plain principles of justice under¬
lying the case—the fact that the two Churches were
identical in doctrines and usages—that the leading de¬
partment of our Church had consented to the division—
that Southern preachers were, equally with Northern
preachers, creators of this fund—and its proceeds, if di¬
vided with the South, would be distributed among simi¬
lar beneficiaries, determined the Court, notwithstanding
any apparent informalities in the action of the Annual
Conferences and of the laity, to*order the South a j*ust
proportion of this property.
Hence the Book Concern Property Case, proves that
concern to be a valuable auxiliary of the gospel, and a
holy charity. And the principles involved in its adjudi¬
cation demonstrate, that in all grand as well as minor
252
A DISCUSSION ON
movements in the Methodist Episcopal Church, the laity
exercise an all-controlling influence; and that the go¬
vernment of Me'thodism, in all respects in which the
Bible gives scope for human legislation, is modelled, as
Mr. Choate says, after our secular union.
MISCELLANEOUS.
I will' briefly dispose of your miscellaneous matter. I
think with your judicious correspondent from Mississippi,
that it is not just to charge the conduct of Muncer—.
"tkat most eminent Baptist," and of his licentious and tyr-
anical band, upon modern Baptists; albeit, his celebrat¬
ed Dran, Draq, Bran proclamation, shows upon the very
face of it, that it was a religious persecution. He says:
" The ungodly will weep like children, but be you piti¬
less," &c. I quoted iUto show that it was equally illo¬
gical and unjust to charge Wesley's "love of the British
Monarchy upon American Methodism.
With regard to creeds; so long as there is a copy ex¬
tant of the " Confession of Faith, and Baptist Discipline,"
from which I quoted so often in this discussion, and so
long as you require the subscription of ministers to your
written Articles of Faith, as you have done even here,
in Tuskegee, I feel it would be injustice to you to class
you with the Campbellites, who object to creeds.
Concerning open communion, I repeat, I concur with
your great lights, John Bunyan, Baptist Noel, and Ko-.
bert Hall, and with the last named, in both his premises
and conclusions.
In answer to the question, whether I would admit any
one to communion who had been expelled from the Me-
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
253
thodist Church, and had joined another Church, I re¬
mark—if not expelled for immoral conduct, I would.
I have been called repeatedly, in,this discussion, to
correct your errors; you may call them errors of fact,
or errors of opinion, just which you please. I must
again correct a very serious error, -involving the rights
of membership. You now admit that a bishop cannot
reinstate an expelled member, but you say the Quarter¬
ly, Annual, and General -Conferences can, and the .prin¬
ciple is the same; you are altogether mistaken. All the
Annual and General Conferences in America cannot re¬
instate a lay member, or have anything whatever to do
with his trial. A member, if he himself choose, can take
his case up by appeal to the Quarterly Conference, and, in.
Tuskegee, this Conference has not a single preacher out
of some fourteen members, except myself. The presid¬
ing elder has not even the casting vote in it. Nor has
the preacher in charge so much as a casting vote in the
trial, of a member before the Church. In this particular
you have more power over your members than I have
in my charge.
You have frequently asked for the logic of my exposure
of the disorders of the Baptist Church, in its bearing up¬
on the point under discussion. L have answered, it was
the mgvmentum, ad hominem—the point was, if your sys¬
tem be Republican, much more is ours. It was to de¬
monstrate the superiority of what the Hon. Eufus
Choate calls that grand, beautiful, well compacted or¬
ganization—the Methodist Church government, over the
system of sad anarchy and cobfusion, called Baptist
. Church government. It would have been more agreeable
to you,. no ddubt, if I had stood on the defensive only, and
22
254
A DISCUSSION ON
not instituted a comparison between the two systems;
but tastes will differ. .If I have failed to pay my res¬
pects to every solitary argument you have advanced, I
am not aware of it.
" THE CONTRAST."
I now examine, -as a finale, the " Contrast" you ima¬
gine yourself to have discovered between Methodism
and Republicanism; an examination not very necessary
after the foregoing review of the principles involved in
the Church suit, and an exposure of the fallacies of the
legal fictions, Which were the chief support of the " Con¬
trast." I pursue the work, however, intending that that
contrast shall be numbered with the things which are
''twice dead, plucked up by the rpots."
I premise that the Bible contains all the doctrines
and the essential principles of discipline, which govern
gospel Churches; and the only scope given' to Church
legislation is in the minor matters necessary to .carry
into detail these principles of divine legislation. In
your " contrast," you seem to have obliterated the dis¬
tinction between what is the allotted scope for Church
government and the province of divine legislation. In
the last-named respect, there is, or should be, a " con¬
trast" between the Church government of gospel
Churches, and the best form of civil government; but
in the former respect", that is, within the lawful sphere
of Church legislation, it is proper there should be, and
in the Methodist Church there certainly is, a most strik¬
ing analogy between her Church government and Re-
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
255
publicanism. But to particularize, taking up your points
seriatim.
In the first place, you say, *" The Constitution of the
United States was formed by representatives chosen by
the people—the Book of Discipline by sixty clergymen
—there was not a single layman's representative in it."
Ans. Mr. Choate says': " The Conference which created
the organization of Methodism was in a remarkable de¬
gree analagous to the Convention which formed the Fe¬
deral Constitution in 178?." They were every one of
them elected to the "ministry by the votes of the people;
they acted in obedience to their strong and general de¬
mand, and so werq representatives of the people on the
one -hand, and, having been called by the Spirit of Christ
to the ministry, were representatives of Christ oh the
other part. Their doctrines and essential points of dis¬
cipline were already formed to their hand by divine le¬
gislation,-and had, been voluntarily subscribed to by the
people, and their duty was only to frame minor details
in order to obedience to Christ's legislation, and these
affected chiefly the ministry themselves.
Secondly: "The Constitution of the United States;
when drafted, was submitted back again to the people;
the constitution of Methodism was adopted and forced
upon their membership, and no layman asked to cast his
suffrages by way of adopting it." Ans. The doctrines,
and essential parts of Methodism, being Christ's legisla¬
tion, and having been voluntarily recognized as such by
every member, by the act of joining our Church; the
less important details, bearing chiefly upon the itiner¬
ancy, which were left for regulation by a Conference
composed of ministers elected to the ministry by the
256
A DISCUSSION ON
people, like the less important laws passed by Congress
for carrying out the principles of the Federal Constitu¬
tion, were not submitted back to the people, upon whom,
indeed, they had very little if any bearing.
Thirdly: " Amendments to the Constitution are sub¬
mitted to their respective constituencies; amendments to
the Discipline are foisted upon the Churches by the mere
prerogative of the General Conference." Ans. Amend¬
ments' are essential changes in the Constitution, to be
amended, and therein differ from ordinary legislation;
but the essentials of the Methodist Discipline are not,
and never have been subject to -amendment,, either by
the laity, or any Conference whatever, because we can¬
not improve Christ's legislation. Nevertheless, the
question of a duality of General Conference jurisdic¬
tions, leaving intact all other departments of the Church,
all offices, rules, and usages, and therefore being no es¬
sential change of discipline, was, notwithstanding, sub¬
mitted back to the people, and'decided according to
their demands. ,
Fourthly: " The President of the United States, and
the highest officers recognized by the General Govern¬
ment, are chosen by the people every two, three, or four
years; the bishops of the Methodist Church are chosen
for life by the General Conference, and are responsible
only to their owU consciences." Ans. The duration of
their term of office is like the term of office of the Su¬
preme Judges of the United States, and of the highest
executive officers of the army and navy of our country;
the-appointment of bishops is similar to the appoint¬
ment of these Judges and high executive officers not di¬
rectly from the people,, and, like them, they are subject
METHODIST EPISCOPACY
25 T
to impeachment by the Senate of the Methodist Church
—the General Conference. They have also- "been called
into the ministry for life by the Spirit of Christ; an ad¬
vantage which cannot be claimed by the civil officers,
whose term of office is of equal duration.
Fifthly: "The Congress of the United States is com¬
posed of delegates elected by the suffrages of the seve¬
ral States,. or by the people of the several States; the
Annual and General Conferences of the Methodist
Church, ex officio, of the bishops and travelling clergy;
no layman of the Methodist Church ever cast a single
ballot for a representative to either a State or General
Conference." Ans. The Senate of the Methodist Church
—;the General Conference—like the Senate of the United
States, is composed of delegates elected by the suffrages
of the State or Annual" Conferences; and every single
member of our State or Annual Conferences was consti¬
tuted such by two-distinct votes of the people. More¬
over, the action of our Annual and- General Conferences,,
unlike laws passed in Congress for the people, is almost
wholly restricted to the control of the ministers, who
compose these bodies; and wherein it is not thhs re¬
stricted, the laity in their several Churches, or in the
side-societies of our Church, have co-ordinate or equal-
jurisdiction.
Sixthly. " The basis of representation in our civil in¬
stitutions is the population of the States, oxeept in the
Senate, but in Methodism, the basis of representation
is the travelling clergy." pAns. Well, it is sufficient'for
us if we imitate the exception named, in the wisest em¬
bodiment of Republicanism in the land—the Senate
chamber. Still, wb have a more equable basis than
258
A DISCUSSION ON
that; our representation depends upon the number of
the itinerants, and, therefore, the number of the repre¬
sentatives of our people; and much more have we an
equable basis of representation -than your last So called
Southern Convention, in which, though fourteen States
should have been similarly represented, there were out
of two hundred and eight delegates, ninety-four from
Alabama, and none at all from three Southern Spates.
Your Seventhly, is but a repetition of your fifthly,
and is answered above.
Eighthly. "Our civil constitutions recognize checks
and balances, tribunals to correct errors, &c.; but in
Methodism, the will of the' preacher or bishop is omni¬
potent in the premises/? Ans. Bishop Hamline taught
that the will of a General Conference was omnipotent
to remove even a blameless bishop;, and a fortiori a
bishop charged with imprudencies. If this is not a
check, what is it? This system of removals, as Bishop
Hamline said, for unacceptability to the people, is like the
President's removals of custom house officers, judges
of territories, &c.; only that civil removals extinguish
official powers, whereas Church removals only change
the sphere of action; therefore, the power of removal
with us in Church matters, is less, than that possessed
by the President in civil affairs.
Ninthly. " In the general' government, the people
choose directly or indirectly every officer; in Methodism,
the travelling ministry appoint every officer," &c. Ans.
I admire your caution -in including ike indirect choice of
every officer; for sometimes that choice is removed several
links from the people, as in the case of these high
officers,—Federal judges, and numerous executive offi-
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
259
cers of the government. In Methodism, there is an
equal, if not greater directness from the people; all the
itinerants are called directly by vote of the people,- and
by the Spirit of Christ, in which last respect, they haVe
a claim to their office unknown to ciyil officers; and
having through faithfulness-, "purchased to themselves
a good degree," their brethren acknowledge it by simply
appointing them as first among equals, which ac-tion by
our Church Senate rests upon better reasons than civil
official appointments not received directly from the
people.
Tenthly. " The right of petition is acknowledged by
the' general government, but the' bishops of the Method¬
ist Church say 'pardon- us if we know of no- such
rights.' " Ans. The General Conference has never in a
single instance denied "the right of petition, or of memo¬
rializing them upon any Subject. The right we deny -is
the right of a layman to order a hundred ministers,
paore or less, to the four winds, leaving them to decamp
at his dictum, while he returned with quiet dignity to
his home. It is like the refusal of Congx*ess to pass
laws at the instance of abolition petitions, which would
control political and social interests in no wise affecting
them; and, fortunately for us, the acts of Congress have
very distinctly replied to. such busy bodies in other
men's matters.—" We know no1 such rights, we compre¬
hend no such privileges,'-'
Your Eleventhly is contained in your fifthly, and an¬
swered above.
Twelfth. "Congress is a body of limited powers; but
the General Conference is a body unlimited in its au-
260
A DISCUSSION ON
thority to- create, and equally unlimited in the authority
to destroy; it was in its power to become Socinian,"- &c.
Ans. The six restrictive articles forbidding any change
in doctrines and rules, &c.; the protest of the Louisville
Convention against this doctrine; the analysis of our
Church government by Mr. Choate; the protest of lead¬
ing men in the Church, North, and the entire history of
Methodism, proves this legal fiction not only to be un¬
founded, but to be utterly absurd.
Thirteenth. " The Constitution of the United States
alleges that we, the people of the United -States, do or¬
dain and establish this Constitution; the discipline
affirms that Mr. Wesley preferred the Episcopal mode
of Church government. One man, John Wesley, author¬
ized the establishment of the Methodist Church." Ans.
John Wesley himself, says in his letters recommending
an organization, and letters of ordination to Dr. Coke:
Some thousands of the inhabitants of these States desire my
advice, and in compliance with their desire, I have drawn up
a little -sketch. The Conference which organized the Am-
erican Methodist Church, says Mr. Choate, was analogous
in a remarkable degree to the Convention which formed the
Federal Constitution in 11.87.
Fourteenth. "In the government of the United Stdtes,
legislative, executive, and judicial powers are placed in
the hands of three distinct classes of officers; in the
Methodist Church„ these powers are all in the same
hands." Ans. Our bishops have no legislative powers
at all; our Annual and General Conferences have no
executive powers at all in any one of our thousands of
Churches; and our preachers in charge have only judi-
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
261
cial powers in our Churches, besides other restrictions,
too tedious to specify, and withal, the essential parts of
our discipline are of Christ alone.
Your fifteenth is included in your fifth and tenth, and
the answer to them is my reply.
Sixteenth: " Our civil constitutions recognize the prin¬
ciple, that all power is inherent in the people; in the
Methodist Church, all power is inherent in the clergy."
Ans. The clergy have no power, so much as to vote in
the expulsion of a member; they have no power, so
much as to vote upon our doctrines and the essential
parts of our discipline. The acknowledgement of the
principle that all power is inherent in the people, in
spiritual matters, would be an attempt to dethrone
Christ as King in Zion.
Seventeenth: "In our civil government, the property
is held by the people; in the Methodist Church it is held
and disposed of by the clergy." Ans. The Book Con¬
cern property is held by the clergy in trust for specified
holy uses, and rightfully, for that fund was mainly of
their own creation; but in all church-buildings, colleges,
&c., they have no property at all, not even to the value
of a single cent; they have never claimed any right
beyond the privilege of appointing preachers to the
Churches.
Thus endeth the review of " The Contrast," establish¬
ing the fact, that where there should be" a contrast be¬
tween God's Church aqd a civil government, that con¬
trast exists; but within the limited scope given for
Church legislation, the analogy between the Methodist
ChurclTgovernment, and the government of the United
States, is striking. For the "contrast between the dis-
262
A DISCUSSION ON
jointed scheme, yclept the Baptist Church government,
and our Federal Government, see my former communi¬
cations. For brevity, I have compared our government
with the Federal, and not State governments*
CONCLUSION.
In conclusion, I congratulate all concerned, upon the
pleasant character of the discussion now closing. I
thank you for the courtesies you have extended to me,
and do cordially reciprocate your kind, regards. I feli¬
citate- myself upon the prospect of the publication of this
discussion in a permanent form. I believe that it will
not only not diminish, but rather increase that holy
charity, but too imperfectly cherished by the two
Churches to each other; that it will be productive
of good to both Churches, and a noble example of -the
truth, that controversy can bfe carried on with kindness,
and in a spirit of Christian forbearance.
With ttiis- spirit of holy charity resting upon our
Churches, they will do good work in the cause of the
great Head of the Church, whatever be the merits or
defects of their systems of government. But without
this spirit, though our preachers "spoke with the
tongues of*, men, and of angels, and understood all
mysteries, and all knowledge; though our members
gave all their goods to feed the poor, and their bodies
to be burned," it would profit them nothing.
I am satisfied with the discussjon, and wish it to go
to the world upon its own merits. In view of the cheap¬
ness of the publication, and its consequent wider circu-
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
263
lation; and that the circulation may he equally wide in
both Churches, accompanied as it then will he hy the
endorsement of both Methodists and Baptists, I hope
you will in the magnanimity which you have hitherto
shown me, and injustice to me, publish the "Addenda"
recommended by the Tuskegee Association, in a separ¬
ate volume. I propose, therefore, in order to secure
these ends, that yourself, and a committee of thfee from
your Church, meet myself and those members of the Me¬
thodist Church who endorsed my first article, to confer
upon and arrange all preliminaries necessary to give
weight to the publication of this discussion.
With sentiments of, Christian love,,
I am your brother in Christ,
E. J. HAMILL.
November 8th, 1855.
264
A DISCUSSION ON
REPLY TO LETTER YI.
METHODIST CHURCH PROPERTY'CASE AGAIN.
Error must be removed before Truth can be established; No foun¬
dation for Episcopacy in the Scriptures, according to its most
able defenders; Time, place, and circumstances supply jts only
defence; Manifest perversion and misconstruction of arguments;
The objects for which the Book Fund was raised, not the subject of
debate; Changing the issue; Another specimen of Methodist logic;
The " holy charity" not ^too holy for lay-management*; A plain
statement of the case; The question at issue between the parties;
Decision of the court; Mr. Choate's " view of Methodism " an¬
swered by Mr. Johnson, declared sophistical by the court, and
overruled; Difference between a General Conference, possessing
sovereign power,, and the Congress of the United States, possess¬
ing limited powers; Mr. Wesley's letter granting the request of
his American children; Application of the principles involved in
the law suit to the entire system of Methodism; An inventory of
facts; Are legal gentlemen of the first distinction, and learned
judges, capable of understanding " the Book of Discipline" and
" the History of Methodism," when they are in evidence before
them? A trilemma; Some credit is due the solemn decisions of
our National Courts.
THE STANDARDS.
Another appeal, to the standards, in search of the " democratic ele¬
ment;" Watson's Theological Institutes; Prof. C.F. Deems; Judge
Longstreet; Lorenzo Dow; Isaac Taylor; Rev. R. Abbey; Aris¬
tocracy; An interesting experiment suggested; A transfer of
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
265
property implies proprietorship; .Protests; Judicial exposition of
Methodism; An odium which is proof against all " protests;" The
" could " and the " would " of the General Conference not subject
to the Churches; Not likely that the same men would act differ¬
ently in a General and Annual Conference; Another extract" from
the Opinion of the Court; Three remarkable conclusions; How a
cypher in[the ptemises becomes "an all-controlling" numerical
number in the conclusion; An improvement on Bishop Taylor's
discovery of Truth without evidence; How a system of govern¬
ment which " has' no. constituents " Is " modified after our grand
secular union;" Syhopsis.
MISCELLANEOUS.
Mr. Wesley, and not " the will of the laity, acting through the min¬
istry," the father of American Methodism; The Munster insurrec¬
tionists sustain no such relation to the Baptists; The authority of
creeds; The Methodist Church more holy than the Lord's table;
The jurisdiction of Quarterly and Annual Conferences; The Book
of Discipline responsible for the error; The relative power of a
Methodist and Baptist pastor; "Anarchy and confusion, called
Baptist Church government;" " Tastes will differ;" An illustra¬
tive anecdote.
THE CONTRAST.
A modest pledge; A wonderful draft upon.popular credulity; The
voluntary adoption of a form, of government does not make it
Republican; An essential change in the constitution of Method¬
ism not submitted to the laity for confirmation; Judges and mili¬
tary officers not law-making authorities; The constituents of a
General Conference and of the Congress of the United States
contrasted; Senate of the United States; Baptist Conventions not
legislative bodies, therefore, cannot infringe upon the rights of
the Churches; Seventh, eleventh, and fifteenth points not identical
With the fifth; Bishop Hamline stationed to guard the eighth
point; "Philadelphia Church Advocate;" Question for the Pro¬
testant Methodists to answer; "Protests" vs. Pacts; The"Stand-
23
266 A DISCUSSION ON
ards;" Bishop Bascom detailed to guard the fourteenth point;
Clerical "absolutism; Trustees of Church property; Something
about "killing and plucking up by the roots," what the fathers
of " our Episcopacy" planted; The seventeen points sustained; Mr.
Hamill the antagonist of the Circuit Court of the United States,
not ours; An important concession the basis of a strange conclu¬
sion; "Was apostolic Church government " a disjointed system of
anarchy and confusion?" The Church government adopted by
Christ and his Apostles preferable to that despotic "scheme
yclept" Methodist Episcopacy, fastened upon Methodists by
Wesley and sixty travelling preachers, *in 1784; Proposition in
regard to the joint publication of the discussion; Concession to
secure this; Reciprocal courtesy; Conclusion.
" We will eatour oWh bread, and wear our own apparel; pnly let ns be called by, thy
name, to take away our reproach."—Isaiah, iv. 1.
" For they have healed the Burt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace,
peace, when there is no peace."—Jer. viii, 11..
If men',s judgments were not warped and distorted
by their prejudices and passions, truth would always
be a welcome guest. But ever since sin despoiled the
handiwork of God, this virgin form of heavenly mould
has been doomed to a perpetual war with the lower and
baser affections of the human soul. Like the fabled
Osiris, she has been hewja in pieces, and the fragments
have been scattered to the four winds of he'aven, there¬
by devolving upon her sad friends the task of hunting
up these fragments, and by a kind of moral synthesis,
restoring, her again to her .former loveliness and sym¬
metry. This ponsymmation may be long delayed. Many
fierce contests may yet lie between her votaries and the
promised victory. But He who has commissioned them
to execute this sacred trust will see to it, that their la¬
bors shall not be intermitted,, until every member of the
body of this martyred saint shall be restored, and " the
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
261
Spirit of life from God shall enter into it; and it shall
stand up, and great fear shall fall upon them who see
it."
Now, it must strike every sensible man with all the
force of an overwhelming conviction, that the exposing
and subversion of error is an essential condition preced¬
ent to the establishment of truth. A large portion of the
labors of our Saviour was devoted to the refutation of the
prevailing errors of the age in which he lived upon earth
—called in Scripture " the traditions of the elders." He
employed no palliating terms by which to call them.
With the integrity and sternness of Divinity itself,
he knew nothing of expedients and compromises. De¬
nouncing these apologists of error as a " generation of
vipers" and " hypocrites," woe after woe falls from his
lips like so many claps of thunder. " In vain do ye
worship me," he says, " teaching.for doctrines the command¬
ments of men." And is error less offensive to him now
than it was then? Nay, verily. Whatever is taught
for doctrines which bears not the heavenly inscription,
should be denounced as " the commandments of men."
And he who compromises " one jot or tittle" of divine
truth to popular opinion, is unworthy of human or di-
dine trust.
That Episcopacy has no foundation in the Word of
God, is freely admitted by its best and most noble
friends. Dr. Bangs, quoted by the Rev. Mr. Stevens, a
Methodist clergyman, in his "Essay on Church Polity,"
says: "Nq specific form of Church government is pre¬
scribed in Scripture, and therefore it. is left to the dis¬
cretion of the Church to regulate these matters, as the
exigencies of the time, place, and circumstances shall
268
A DISCUSSION ON
dictate to be most expedient, and likely to accom¬
plish the greatest amount of good; always avoiding
any and everything which God has prohibited." Bishop
Beveridge, says: "Nothing can be determined from
what the Apostles did in their early proceedings, in
preaching the gospel, as to the establishment of any
certain form of Church government." Tit sujpra. To
these we may add the testimony of Mr. Wesley, in a"
letter to Mr. Clark: "I think he (Bishop Stillingfleet,)
has unanswerably proved, that neither Christ nor his
Apostles prescribe any particular form of Church gov¬
ernment, and that the plea of the divine right of Episcopacy
was never heard of in the primitive Church."—Works, vol.
x. p. 231. So that the only defence of which Episcopacy
admits at all, is that which "time, place, and circum¬
stances" may suggest. Throwing ourselves even upon
this flimsy and miserable subterfuge — a subterfuge
which error is always proposing when grappling with
truth, begging only to be recognized as an- equal party
in the contest—we say, granting all this, we still fight
Episcopacy with the weapons which "time, place, and
circumstances" have thrown in our hands. As to the
"time," it is the middle of the nineteenth centuty, when
man is engaged in making the last great experiment as
to whether he is able to govern himself, or whether he
must still groan under a self-constituted despotism, re¬
ligious or political, " which has ho constituents." And
then, as to the "place," it is the free Commonwealth of
the United States, the favored spot of earth, the "asylum
for the oppressed of all nations, where all men are re¬
cognized as equal. If, then, the "place"is to have an
agency in modifying ecclesiastical polity, we claim that
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
269
Episcopacy shall surrender her mitre to that heavenly ap¬
pointed constituency in the Churches of the saints, whose
nobility has been patented by the Triune God; who are
his "kings as priests"-^-even as civil despots have been
made to surrender their crown to that power behipd the
throne more potent than " cabals" and " stat chambers."
And finally, as to„the " circumstances"—these all point
unmistakeably to such a reformation in "our Episco¬
pacy," as will compel her to ""know the rights and compre¬
hend the privileges" of a " constituency."
But our purpose is not -to introduce a new train of ar¬
gument in this discussion^ for we have already conclud¬
ed our part of the argument, but simply to respond to
Brother Hamill's last communication. And the reader
will doubtless agree with our first impression on receiv¬
ing it from his hands, If it is only as logical as it is
lengthy, it is certainly a very stern document. But on
wading through it, we found it to be but a reiteration
of much of his preceding articles, adapted only to our
two last articles.
In regard to the " Church Property Case," there are
but two or three points in his article which merit our
attention. He h^s doubtless given a faithful account of
the origin and history of the " Book Concern." With
this, however, we have nothing to do. We have been
discussing a principle in Episcopal Methodism which de¬
termined the division of that fund between the North
and the South. And this is the first point to which the
reader's attention is invited. How Bro. Hamill could
have misconstrued the whole drift of our .argument upon
that case* we are at a loss to determine. After stating
2Y0
A DISCUSSION ON
the benevolent objects of the "Book Concern," viz: to
circulate a religious literature, and support supernumer¬
ary and superannuated preachers, and the widows and
orphans of deceased ministers, he asks: "Can any ra¬
tional man pronounce such an institution, contemplating
such holy ends, anti-Republican?" We utterly deny
having pronounced any such - thing. We never so
much as alluded to the- objects contemplated in the es¬
tablishment of that "Concern." The objects it contem¬
plates is one thing—the principles on which it is admin¬
istered is quite a different thing. Now, Brother HamiH
seeks to make us affirm that of the objects of this fund,
which we affirmed of the principles on which an equitable,
division of it was made between the North and South,
by the judicial tribunals of the country. And that Bro.
Hamill had to resort to such a subterfuge as this, to
meet as plain an argument at least as we are capable of
writing, and pervert it to a purpose which never eptered
our head, is proof demonstrative that he felt incompe¬
tent to meet it fairly. There is a legal phrase, called
" changing the issue," which simply means, that when
one party feels unable to meet t]ie main issue, involved,
he substitutes- another which he can meet, and pleads to
it, as if it were the main point—and this is always equi»
valent to giving up the case. We were discussing a
principle > which determined an important law-suit be-
tweeen Northern and Southern Episcopacy. Brother
Hamill substitutes the objects for which the money was-
raised, involved in the contqst, for the principle' which
decided the law-suit, and makes us affirm that of these
objects, which we only affirmed applied to the principle in
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
2'U
" our Episcopacy" which decided the suit! Nay, he
rings the changes upon it, as if he had made a discov¬
ery which Was forever to vindicate the claims of Epis¬
copal Methodism to as pure Republican Democracy as
ever placed a President in the White House! The ob¬
jects of the Methodist Book Concern anti-Republican!!
Is that the subject We have been discussing, Brother
Hamill? Something has been said in this discussion
about " twistification,"
• m
The logic of his argument upon this part of the sub-
lect is this, (and the reader will see that it chimes in
very well with much that he has heretofore written):
The objects,for which the book fund was raised, were
"pure and holy," nay, " the holiest and most benevolent
in the land:" ergo, Episcopal Methodism is decidedly
Republican! So much, then, for this misconception and
perversion of our argument.
Let it be observed, furthermore, that Brother Hamill
does not deny that the book fund is under the sole man¬
agement of the ministry, (just what we affirmed,) nay,
that it ought to be under their management, because it
has mainly accumulated undpr their agency. Here our
brother has unconsciously announced a principle which
we could wish he had the candor to acknowledge as ap¬
plicable to the whole system. Let us explain. The
book fund has mainly accumulated under clerical agency,
therefore it ought to be under clerical management; so
affirms Brother Hamill. By parity of reasoning, meet¬
ing-houses, parsonages, conference colleges, and aca¬
demies, have been projected and built under clerical
agency, therefore they ought to be deeded to them, in
212
A DISCUSSION ON
their General Conference capacity! People have been
added to the Church under clerical agency, therefore
they ought to be under their rule and management!!
What immaculate Eepublicanism! And then—where
did this book fund come from? Are the preachers* so
well paid for their services, that they have been able to
accumulate -a fund in the United States, of nearly a mil¬
lion of dollars, out of their salaries? If so, they harve
been better paid than we had anticipated. Or is it Ow¬
ing to their superior financial skill, in changing hun¬
dreds into thousands, with Astorian rapidity? We could
scarcely expect this„ We once heard of five Yankees
who shut themselves up in a room, and swapped cloth¬
ing until they made five dollars a-piece;.but we would
not suspect Methodist clergymen as possessing such
skill as this. But seriously, we suppose that fund was
raised like all other benevolent funds of the various
Churches, by a system of agencies, in which the minis¬
try were mostly employed, in contributions from private
members, ministers, and everybody else who felt inclin¬
ed to give to it. Granted, therefore, that it has been
raised mostly through the agency of ministers, and " for
the holiest and most benevolent of purposes in the land,"
does that prove that laymen are too " common and un¬
clean" to assist in managing this holy and benevolent
fund? Is there a peculiar sanctity imparted to it by its
paving passed through clerical hands, that it must for¬
ever be placed beyond the management and control of
those from whose pockets it was, at least in part, ob¬
tained? Are they less capable of managing, and more
likely to pervert it from its "holy and benevolent de-
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
213
sign," than the clergy? Really, ve think our brother
has paid rather an equivocal compliment, either to the
skill or the integrity of the laity of his Church.
Passing over some minor matters, which we can well
afford to do, we come to the second point in Bro. Hamill's
argument; and it is one of far greater importance than
the foregoing. It relates to the source whence he has
drawn his testimony in the Property Case. It is proper
that we again state this case to the reader, so that he
can appreciate the relative value of the testimony, as
introduced by Bro. Hamill and ourself.
In 1841, on the degradation of Bishop Andrew for being
a slave-holder, a series of resolutions were passed by the
General Conference, contemplating a contingent division
of Church property between the North and the South.
Commissioners were appointed to .carry out the provi¬
sions of these resolutions in case that contingency occur¬
red—which was the organization of a Southern General
Conference, and the adoption of the resolutions by a ma¬
jority of the Annual Conferences. These commissioners
were specifically instructed to negotiate an equitable
division of the assets of the Book Concern, with -an equal
number of commissioners appointed on the part of the
South. Immediately after the Southern General Con¬
ference was organized, the commissioners on .the part
of the South, signified their readiness to discharge their
duty, but, from sundry causes, the Northern commis¬
sioners refused to meet them. Whereupon suit was
brought by the Southern commissioners to recover their
proportion of said funds, according to the terms* stipu¬
lated in the resolutions of the General Conference. To
214
A DISCUSSION ON
prevent any sort of confusion, we will give a statement
of the suit, as reported and published by both divisions
of the Church:
" Circuit Court, United States,
For the Southern District of New York.
The Honorable Judges Nelson and Betts, Presiding.
Henry B. Bascom, and others,
George LaiJe, and others.
Counsel for Plaintiffs—Mr. D. Lord, Hon. Reyerdy
Johnson, and Mr. Johnson, Jr.
Counsel for Defendants—Hon. Rufus Choate, Mr. Geo.
Wood, and Mr. E. L. Fancher."
Now, the question at issue between the parties liti¬
gant in this suit, was, as stated by Judge Nelson, "As
to the power qjf the General Conference to authorize a
separation of the Church organization," upon the settle¬
ment of which question " depended the division of the
common property."—Appendix to Property Case, p. 10.
The counsel for the South maintained that the General
Conference had the power to authorize a separation
of the Church, and to divide its property. The counsel
for the North denied such power to the General Confer¬
ence. The Court decided this point in favor of the plain¬
tiffs, and they consequently gained the suit. For this reason
we made our quotations from the speeches of the coun-
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
215
sel for the successful party. Mr. Johnson and his col¬
leagues maintained that the Conference of 1184, who
" organized the Church, established its doctrines and
discipline," &c. possessed no more nor less power than
the Conference of 1844, only as they restricted them¬
selves by " the six restrictive rules." Mr. Choate and
his colleagues maintained, on the contrary,"that the Con¬
ference of 1184 was*sm generis—that when it organized
the Church, it disappeared, and has never convened
since. When that Conference had done its work of
creating the Church," says Mr. Choate, 'foit retired, dis¬
appeared, and has never again beep,assembled in the
history of Methodism."—Property Case■ p. 266. This
was the issue between them. The counsel for 'the plain¬
tiffs alleged in proof of their position, that the General'
Conference had, time and again, exercised all the powers
of sovereignty; that they had extended their jurisdic¬
tion beyond the territorial limits of the United States;
into Canada and Texas \ that they had authorized a se¬
paration of the Canada Conference from the General
Conference,"in 1828; that they had frequently changed
the Book of Discipline, &c. &c. And, we repeat it, the
South gained the suit—and gained it, too, upon that ex;
position of Methodist Church polity furnished by their
counsel. We shall still further prove before we close this
article, from the decision of the Court, that the doctrines
advanced by the Southern counsel, and which we extract¬
ed into the article Brother Hamill reviews, were trium¬
phantly sustained.
And while on this subject, we must correct another
very sad blunder into which Brother Hamrll has1 fallen.
Quoting Mr. Choate as saying that the General Confer-
216
A DISCUSSION ON
ence which organized the Methodist Episcopal Church
in 1184, was " analagous to the Convention that created the
Federal Constitution in 1181," he seems to think he has
made the discovery, which at once and beyond all doubt,
assimilates Episcopacy to Kepublicanism. Here our
brother has evidently shouted before he got happy. We
are really sorry to deprive him of the last and only plank
upon which he has planted " our Episcopacy," particu¬
larly as the seas are rough*. But thankless as will be
the task, and painful as.js the necessity, we are com¬
pelled to do it. In what did the analogy between the
General Conference in 1184, and the Convention of the
States in 1181 consist? In the manner in which the
members of each were chosen—by the popular will? Ho
man will pretend this in the face of the fact, that not a
single Methodist Society in the Union ever elected a de¬
legate to that Conference. Mr. Choate himself, though,
interested to prove that it was called by the Societies,
could.not do so even to his own satisfaction; for he says:
"It may be stated that the true creator of the Church
was the general and collective will of American Method¬
ism acting through the laity and through^the preachers.
Or it may be said that it was the collective will of Ame¬
rican Methodism, expressing itself and acting through
an extraordinary Convention, called under a letter of Mr.
Wesley, for that express purpose, which did its work, and
then disappeared."—(p. 268.) Observe, Mr. Choate
seeks to entrench himself .upon both of these positions;
so that if the first failed (and it did fail,) he could retreat
upon the second. In what, then, did the analogy consist?
Why, clearly in this; that they were both extraordinary
Conventions, convened for extraordinary purposes, and
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
211
which " did their work, and then disappeared." And
yet Brother Hamill would impress the reader with the
idea that Mr. Choate recognized a beautiful analogy be¬
tween Episcopal Methodism, as organized, and our civil
government, as organized! when Mr. Choate only alleg¬
ed the analogy between the Conference of 1*784, as or¬
ganizing Methodism, and.the Convention of 1187, as or¬
ganizing our Federal Constitution, in the single point,
that they each did their* work and ceased to exist.
Whether our brother's blindness in this respect is moral
or natural, it becomes us not to say.
As Mr. Choate stated in his speech that " the preach¬
ers acted in obedience to the wishes of the people," in
the Conference of 1784; that that body was "American
Methodism acting through the laity and through the min¬
istry," and as Brother Hamill seems to endorse that
sentiment, we will let Mr. Johnson, one of the counsel
for the South, answer both. He says:
" Where did the predecessors "of the Northern preach¬
ers, from whom all authority is- derived, look for the
power to call the Conference of 1784, for the purpose
for which it was called? To John Wesley, as the per¬
son in whom, at that time, was vested the entire and exclu¬
sive sovereign power of the Church. It is unnecessary to«
inquire whether by virtue of some inherent and inalien¬
able right, the power might qpt have been found in
these gentlemen, in 1784, irrespective of the will of
Wesley. It is sufficient for me to show, that in 1784,
they claimed, and claimed alone, the powei; they exerted
in the Conference of that year, Under the authority of
Wesley, as the author, sovereign, and founder of the Church.
Who* constituted the Conference of 1784? My learned
24
A DISCUSSION ON
brother who spoke first upon the other side, would have
had your Honors to believe, what* of course he satisfied
himself was the fact, that that Conference was called
together not Only by the preachers of the Church, but
by all the lay members. There is not a word of truth in
the statement, although, of course, the learned counsel be¬
lieved it to be true. It was a general assembly of the
preachefs connected with the Methodist denomination
of Christians, convoked . only as preachers, without re¬
ference to any lay authority, express or implied. Not
being as familiar with the history of the Church as my
colleague, who was kind enough to Undertake to lay'
before the Court the evidence which is found spread up¬
on the [records in the case, I inquired, as soon as the
statement was made, whether there was any foundation
for the assertion that the Conference of 1184, had any
other authority for its convocation than the authority of
Wesley, and 'the authority in themselves as preachers,
alone connected with the Methodist Association. I found
that there was not. If your Honors will turn to page 5 of
the Proofs No. 1, you will find, that immediately succeed¬
ing the letter of Wesley, which authorized the separate
organization, it is stated: 'To carry into effect the pro¬
posed organization,' (Wesley's proposed organization,)
' a General Conference of preachers was called, to meet
at Baltimore, at Christmas, 1184. Sixty out of the
eighty-three preachers then in the travelling connexion,
attended at the appointed time. At this Conference,
say the Annual Minutes of 1785, it was unanimously
agreed that circumstances made it expedient for us' (that
is, the preachers) 'to become a separate body,' &c.
They admit no constituency. The time is perhaps^ coming,
METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 219
when, in all probability, they will be obliged .to admit one
for the good of the Church. They resolve for themselves, and
for themselves alone, as the possessors df all .the ecclesiastical
power known to the Methodist Church, to carry out the par¬
ticular organization authorized by John Wesley, without
reference to any other authority than this, and their own con¬
victions that the good of the Church demanded such a
special and particular organization."
As to the declaration of Mr. Choate, that "for the
conduct of its general affairs, "it proceeds on the plan
of our grand secular union, having a general body," &c.;
we submit, that if Mr. Choate had proven that to the sat¬
isfaction of the court, he would have gained the case—
for this obvious reason: If the General Conference had
no more authority as an ecclesiastical body, than the
Congress of the United States has as a civil body, then
it had no right to authorize a separation of the Church,
any more than. Congress has a right to destroy this
confederacy. The Congress of the United States is
governed by a written constitution, adopted by a power
superior to themselves, and they dare not violate it. The
General Conference ,is governed by a constitution
adopted by themselves, and which recognizes no power beyond
themselves. And hence the court decided, that the preach¬
ers " when assembled in General Conference, according
to the usages and discipline of the Church, represent them¬
selves, and have no constituents." Mr. Choate, therefore,
failed in establishing his point before the court, and
lost the suit. Thrown into an argument, it may be
stated thus: The power to dissolve a social or religious
compact, is an attribute of sovereignty. The General
Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, " accord-
280
A DISCUSSION ON
ing to the usage and discipline of that Church," may
exercise this power." Therefore, the General Conference
is the sovereign power of that Church, "responsible
only to themselves" for its exercise. And yet Brother
Hamill quotes this declaration of Mr. Choate to show
the Republicanism of his Church!
His quotation from Mr. Wesley's letter, yielding to
the wishes of his American children to give them a
separate organization, only proves what Mr. Johnson
affirms, that he (Wesley) "is the author, sovereign, and
founder of the Church." If several thousand Englishmen
should petition the Queen and Parliament to pass a
certain law, and their wishes should be respected,
would that prove "that English Monarchy was Repub¬
licanism. The very fact that Mr. Wesley was petitioned
to grant- them a separate organization, is a concession
that they had no right to form one. If our colonies,
after the Revolutionary war, had petitioned Lord North,
or King George, for q, constitution, instead of forming
one ^or themselves, what an impressive commentary on
their democracy!!
The third and last point in this part of Bro. (Hamill's
communication, requiring notice, is that which relates
directly to the application of the'principle above suggest¬
ed, to the Property Case. After demurring to the ex¬
tracts ©f the speeches we made, from Messrs. Lord and
Johnson, Brother Hamill says: " It may be asked, then,
did the Church, South, recover its property upon false
principles? I answer, no." The principles set forth in
the debate, were "false in their application to all other
matters of Church polity, but true in their application io
the Book Concern Fund," &c- Ti'uly "-mir Episcopacy"
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
must be an impenetrable mystery. If neither the first
lawyers nor the highest judicial functionaries of the
United States can understand it, we n§ed not wonder
that opr impertinence has been so sternly rebuked for dar¬
ing to look into its sublime mysteries! Now, this spe¬
cial " application" of special " principles" to special
" cases" is a very convenient weapon with which to
fight the battles of Episcopacy. If local preachers and
private members petition for " mutual rights" in the Ge¬
neral and Annual Conferences, this special " principle"
will apply with special emphasis to that u case," and
they are answered with, " pardon us if we know no such
rights,, if we comprehend no.such privileges." If a law¬
suit is pending between " our Episcopacy," North, and
" our Episcopacy," South, in which the. stake is nearly
half a million of dollars, why then,'also, this special
"•principle" applies with singular appropriateness and
"profit to this "case." And then the fund has been most¬
ly raised and accumulated by clerical agency, and is so
sacred, and designed for " the holiest and most benevo¬
lent purposes;" that it must not be managed* by any
other than clerical hands. In this respect, too, they
admit no constituents; they have no constituents." So
that at whatever point we direct our gearch for a " con¬
stituency" in " our Episcopacy," either-in its ecclesiastical
or temporal jurisdiction, this special principle applies with
peculiar propriety to that special point. We should
like to know ff the parts ai*e* thus destitute of the " De¬
mocratic element," what is to be pronounced of the
whole ?
But let us look into this chameleon principle, which ap¬
plies so peculiarly to every case, and which yet leaves
282
A DISCUSSION ON
the whole system perfectly free from its contagion.
Now, we assert, that this principle—the principle of abso-
solute irresponsible clerical power—pervades the whole gov¬
ernmental economy of Episcopal Methodism. Take the
following inventory of facts in proof of this assertion.
The bishops appoint all the circuit riders and stationed
preachers to their charges; the bishops appoint every
presiding elder to his circuit; the preachers and elders
appoint all the class leaders, stewards, and trustees,
who hold church property; the bishops, elders, and
preachers remove at their pleasure, all their respective
appointees, the removed party having no alternative
but submission, there "being no tribunal to correct errors
or rectify wrongs;" that in not a single department of
their government, legislative, executive, or judicial, are
laymen eligible to seats; that both the State and Ge¬
neral Conferences are composed, ex officio, of the travel¬
ling preachers and their representatives; that when local
preachers and private members petition for a representa¬
tion in these bodies, they are answered in language,
which, if addressed to American citizens in their civil
capacity, by our National pr State .government, would
instantly light up the fires of a second revolution:
"Pardon us if we know no such' rights, if we compre¬
hend no such privilegesthat this body of clergy, in cre¬
ating the Methodist Episcopal Church in 1184, and dis¬
solving it in 1844, exercised the highest attributes of
sovereignty known on earth; that the General Confer¬
ence, in transferring "all the property of the Methodist
Episcopal Church, in meeting-houses, parsonages, col¬
leges, schools, Conference funds, cemeteries, and of every
kind," within the limits of the Southern organization, to
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
283
the Church, South,* on the contingency of its organiza¬
tion, did assert all the proprietorship in said property,
which the laws of the country guaranty to any corpo¬
ration ; that in authorizing an equitable division of the
" Book and Chartered Fund," the same principle of pro¬
prietorship is involved; and that such facts as these
being in evidence before the Court, in the " Church Pro¬
perty Case," that august tribunal could have made no
other decision in that case than that " the lay members "of
the Chu'rch have no4part or connection north its governmental
organization, and never had. The travelling preachers
comprise ihe embodiment of its power, ecclesiastical (and
temporal;" and when assembled in General Conference,
according to the usages and discipline of the Church, repre¬
sent themselves and "have no constituents."
But Brother Hamill, conscious that the facts and ar¬
guments we had adduced from the " Property Case,"
Could hot be answered, admits that, so far as the "rights
of property, which the Courts of our country will recog¬
nize," are concerned, " the opinions of legal gentlemen
. . . . are worthy of the highest respect. But upon
questions of Church polity," they "cannot possibly un¬
derstand them as thoroughly" as those who are " con¬
nected with their respective Cliurch systems-" and theii
asks and answers, as before stated, thus: "Did the
Church, South, recover its property "Upon false prin¬
ciples? I answer, no; there were principles set forth
in the debate, which were false in their application to
all other matters of Church polity, but true in their ap¬
plication to the Book Concern Fund." Now, this is a
species of special pleading which would do honor to a
Jesuit. Let us look at it: A question of Church pro-
284
A DISCISSION ON
perty comes up before one of our highest judicial tribu¬
nals, to be decided; the parties.to the suit are respon¬
sible for the testimony upon either side; the Court is
responsible for the application of the law to the state of
facts involved in the testimony. On page 25, of the
"Church Property Case," it is agreed by the parties to
the suit, " that the Book of Discipline of the Methodist
Episcopal Church, printed in 1840, which was the book
in force at the time Of the Conference of 1844," together
with "Emory's History of the Discipline of th6 Church,"
"shall be considered as evidence." These Standards"
set forth the general polity of that * hierarchy. ■ Either,
therefore, the "Book of Discipline" and "Emory's His¬
tory," contained "principles which were false in their
application to all other matters of Church polity, but true
in, their application to the Book. Concern Fund," or the
" legal gentleman" who argued the case, and the learned judges
who decided it, were incompetent to comprehend the evidence be¬
fore them! or if thhy comprehended it, they have wilfully
perverted it! " Our Episcopacy" may take either horn of
the trilemma. The decision was .made, if the judges
are to be believed, " according to the usages and discipline
of the Church," as set forth in its " Standards." If these
"Standards" are "falseV the "Fathers" made them so,
and the children ought to.correct them. If judgment
has been perverted, either through the imbecility or cor¬
ruption of our judiciary, J.udges Nelson and Betts ought
to be impeached. In either case "our Episcopacy"
ought to set herself to work with all possible prompt¬
ness and energy. The merest petifogger that ever read
half a dozen pages in Blackstone, could not hesitate one
moment after reading the opinion of that Court, in de-
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
285
ciding, that the principles on which that opinion was
based, were the essential organic elements of Episcopal
Methodism. This, neither Bro. Hamill, nor any other
sane man, will deny. If the learned tribunals of our
country cannot comprehend "this system of surpassing,
energy," we humbly submit, that it is time it .was
simplified to their comprehension. .The American peo¬
ple have been accustomed to regard the opinions of our
national Courts with some degree of respect. And it
need not surprise this " kingdom of the elergy," if the
judicial records of the country shall be believed, their
averment to "the contrary notwithstanding.
THE STANDARDS.
But we are asked why we did not appeal to the " Stan¬
dards of our Church," instead of to the opinions of "legal
gentlemen," in this discussion^ and it is intimated that
our "failure to do this is an evidence of the weakness of
our cause, and the groundlessness of our allegations."
How our brother could make such an intimation as this,
with this whole discussion staring him in the face, we
are really at a loss to determine. He could not hope to
deceive* anybody who has read our articles, for that
were impossible, and we therefore acquit him of that
charge. The most charitable construction we can place
upon the 'statement is, that the stress of a dire necessity
which knows no law, suspended for a time the opera¬
tion of every other principle in his heart and mind, but
"our Episcopacy;" that, as we had occasion to remark
in regard to another champion of Methodism, it was not
286
A DISCUSSION ON
Brother Hamill who did this, but Episcopacy that dwelt
in him. Reader, have we not appealed to these " Stand¬
ards" from the very commencement of this discussion?
Have we ventured to state a single fact, from first to
last, which we have not sustained by these very Stand¬
ards? Has our competitor contested the authenticity of a
single one of these factsl Or are we mistaken as to what
these "Standards" are? Are the writings of Mr. Wes¬
ley; the Book of Discipline; the accredited histories of
Methodism, issued by the "Book Concern.;" the reported
proceedings of General Conferences; the speeches and
communications of the bishops, doctors, and clergy of
the Church; are these, we say, to be recognized as the
"Standards" of Methodism? To these we have appealed
to substantiate every fact and principle we have alleged
through this entire discussion. Two of these " Stand¬
ards, to-wit: The Book of Discipline and Emory's His¬
tory, furnished the testimony on which the " Property
Case" was decided in the United States Circuit Court,
for the Southern District of New York. And yet our
"failure to do this is prima facie evidence of the weak¬
ness of our cause, and groundlessness of our allega¬
tions!!" Now, we are perfectly willing for any tribunal
on this earth, except the " travelling clergy," to decide
whether we have not appealed to " our Standards" quite
as often as Episcopacy itself has any right to demand.
Before dismissing this point, we shall introduce a few
more quotations from the " Standards" and other sources,
which we think are entitled to some respect in the pre¬
mises. In Watson's Theological Institutes, a work
which we suppose may be dignified" by the^ippellation
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
281
of " Standard," as it is " the course of study" for the
ministry of the Methodist Episcopal Church, we have
the following: " To raise into legislators and censors all
the members of a Church, the young, the ignorant, and
the inexperienced, is to do them a great injury. It is
the sure way to foster debates, contentions, and self-
confidence, to open the door to intrigue and policy, to
tempt forward and conceited men to become a kind of
religious demagogues, and entirely to destroy the salu¬
tary influence of the aged, experienced, and gifted mem¬
bers, by-referring every decision to members and suf¬
frages, and placing all that is good and venerable and
influential among the members themselves, at the feet
of a Democracy."—Vol. ii. p. 594. Why, the veriest
apologist of monarchy in Europe, could not have written
a sentence exhibiting more supreme contempt for the
very spirit and genius of our civil government thari this
extract from one of "our Standards." The "members of
a Church"—the laity—are represented as "ignorant, in¬
experienced,' contentious, self-confident, conceited, reli?
gious demagogues/" And then this learned divine, by way
of putting upon this assemblage of "conceited men" the
crowning odium, calls them "a Democracy.'" We opine,
that if the lofty pretensions of the clergy were placed at
the feet of such a Democraoy, there wquld bo a storm
raised^ there would be*"debates and contentions" such
as " our Episcopacy" has never witnessed before; and
which would effectually sweep away the last vestiges
of clerical domination. We can but admire the discre¬
tion of " pur Standards" ip. not " placing at the feet of a
democracy," the "divine right" of the clergy to rule
over them.
288
A DISCUSSION ON
The following is from Prof. C. P. Deems, of North
Carolina; and although he may not he exactly a " stand¬
ard," he is nevertheless a very good Methodist:
* " If we may apply the .figure to Methodism, we can
very readily see that a government suited to the sooty
colliers of England, servants, and the uncultivated, who
had grown up amid all the peculiarities of an aristo¬
cratic country, might hardly be fit for a Church among
whose laymen are presidents, and professors in colleges,
judges of supreme courts, senators, and men liberalized
by professional learning and polite associations. The
fact is, John Wesley formed societies ; ours is a Church.
John Wesley did not make government a special study;
but, being a strong man and a violent tory, and finding
a sect gathering around "him to be governed, he seized
the reins—he became autocrat; and through his.helpers
he governed most ably. It tvas very natural that when
our Church was formed, it should be built somewhat
after the model of the 'societies' bf Wesley. Is it not
too exact a copy, and may it not need mending? Even
if Wesley had made government a study, and was by
nature superior to the mass he controlled, there are
laymen in our Church in this day, as great natively as
Wesley, who, have paid much more attention to the sci¬
ence of government. This is said with great deference
and much veneration for many things in the -character
of John Wesley. He was before his times; ours before
him."
We cannot tell whether we are to regard the author
of the " Georgi% Scenes," Judge Longstreet, as entitled
to be ranked among "our standards," or not. He is at
least a Methodist clergyman, and President of the Mis¬
sissippi College; and from that lofty pedestal, he ad¬
dresses his Methodist brethren, dissuading them from
joining the Know Nothing or American party, in the
following strains. Alluding to the letter of Mr. Wesley
to the Catholics, he says:
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
289
" That letter was written to show that Protestants
would not be safe from oppression under Catholic gov¬
ernment. No doubt of it in the world. Nor would
Catholics be safe under Methodist government, as your
plots against them, now, most clearly demonstrate. The
truth is, no religious sect is to be trusted with the reins
of government. And if I were to take the stump against
you, I would say to the honest yeomanry of the count
try: Good people if you think that your liberties will
be any safer in the hands of Methodists than Catholics,
you are vastly mistaken. And in proof of this assertion,
I would point to the outrages of the Methodist majority in
1844, which split our Church. I would add in humilia¬
tion, but in candor: You have ten thousand times more
to fear, just at this time, from Methodists than Catholics;
simply because the first are more numerous than the
last; because the first are actually in the field for office,
while the last are not; because the first are in open war
upon the last; and because the first, by reason of their
numbers, are pets of the strongest political combination
that ever was formed in this country—secret and oath-"
bound at that. Suppose their religion does spread, with
the unexampled rapidity with which yours has, who has
a right to object ? Will you forbid men to choose their
own religion ? In all the essentials of Christianity, do
they not agree with you? Wesley thought so,-and I
think so. Do they differ from you wider in faith than
your Unitarian confederates?'7
As Brother Hamill has already declared his readiness
to receive and recognize Koman Catholic baptism, nay,
that he would even administer the Sacrament of the
Lord's Supper to the members of that apostate Church;
and as Judge Longstreet, in the foregoing extract, asks:
"In all the essentials of Christianity, do not they {i. e. the
jCatholics) agree with you?" (Methodists) and answers:
"Wesley thought so, and I think sol" We are led to
25
290
A DISCUSSION ON
conclude that Episcopacy is substantially the same,
whether in its Roman, English, or American form.
As we have not pried into the leaves of the "Index
Expurgatorius" of American Episcopacy, we do not
know whether the "Life and Writings of Lorenzo Dow"
have yet been put under ban. And in the absence of
this intelligence, the reader will excuse us if we take
his deposition. Speaking of the power of a bishop to
send the " travelling clergy" whithersoever he will, and
of the general polity of Episcopal Methodism, he says:
" Did'the pope ever have unlimited power, without the
voice of any other person, to command six hundred men,
and send them when and where he pleased, because it
was his will and pleasure to have it so? ' to say to one,
go, and he goeth, and to another, come, and he cometh,
and to this man, do this, and .he doeth it?'
I know not where it is recorded in history, that the
pope did command six hundred men, in their ecclesiasti¬
cal and clerical capacity, to send them here and there,
because it was his will and pleasure so to have it, and
that over the country, near two thousand miles, one way,
and fifteen hundred, the other.
How, much less is the power of the President of the
United States? How much greater the privilege of the
citizens, to have a voice by their representatives in the
formation of those rules by which they are to be go¬
verned; and the liberty of speech and of the press, to
remark on the rules and conduct of those who form the
rules, and their mode of governing.
The mode of governing in the old world, contains
those restrictions, as the result and dregs of the old
feudal system; and wherever this mode exists, the prin¬
ciple must be the same; of which, the unlimited, and in
many cases, the undefined power of the bishop, and pre¬
siding elder is a specimen, which, some have seen ancF,
severely felt."—Writings of Rev. L. Dow, p. 545.
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
291
Again: On page 550, he says: "The Methodist mode
of Church goyernment is the most arbitrary and despotic of
any in America, except the Shakers," &c.
We make the following quotation from one of the
most popular writers in England, of the present day—
a gentleman, by the way, whom no man can suspect of
being unfriendly to Methodism:
" Nothing in the compass of literatnre can be at once
more sharply logical, or more thoroughly unphilosophi-
cal than are Wesley's reasonings in support of ministe¬
rial absolutism, and in enforcing the duty of popular sub-
missiveness. With a heart that would have grieved to
injure any man in the smallest matter, he upheld a Church
theory, on the ground of which HERETICS IN TROOPS
MIGHT CONSISTENTLY BE BURNED."— Wesleyan
Methodism, by Isaac Taylor, p*. 251.
We make our last extract from a pamphlet, fresh from
the press, entitled "• Strictures on Church Government, by
Rev. R. Abbey, Nashville, Tenn., published by E. Ste¬
venson and F, A. Owen, Agents for the Methodist Epis¬
copal Church, South, 1855." We suppose that the im¬
primatur of the "Book Concern" would not be placed to
a libel upon "our Episcopacy." Let us, then, take the
deposition of "the Rev, R. Abbey." wHe says:
"Republicanism is equality with regard to government.
But when a class or order of persons comes in with rights
or privileges or duties over and &bove the rights and
privileges of the community; when you have"a privileged
class [the italics are his] in whom .some governmental
rights inhere, of course, in so far as this principle ob¬
tains, be it much or little, it innovates the principle of
pui'e Republicanism. Republicanism knows no class or
order with inherent privileges.
292
A DISCUSSION ON
Now, what is the name of that ingredient in Church
government which inheres in the ministry as a clas dis¬
tinct from laymen? The only name which lexicograph¬
ers and scientific writers on government give to this
principle, is ARISTOCRACY. Then a Christian Church
must be, in part at least, aristocratic. If any man does
not like that term, I cannot help it. If he does not
know its meaning, I advise him to consult a dictionary.
If the term offends his ear, then his ear is either mal¬
formed or mal-educated. Nothing can offend a healthy
.ear but an idea. A word cannot."—p. 11.
Taking the reverend gentleman's advice, we turn to
the Dictionary, and find the following:
Aristocracy, n. 1. A form of government in which the
whole supreme power is vested in the principal persons
of the State, or in a privileged order. 2. The nobility,
or chief persons in a State."— Webster.
We certainly admire the candor of this writer, in call¬
ing things by their right names. We rather guess that
the American "car" has been too thoroughly "malformed"
or "mal-educated" under the influence of our happy com¬
monwealth, ever to appreciate the peculiar harmony of
that sound. We advise the reader to make the experi¬
ment, say the next Fourth of July. Let him, while his
fellow-citizens are celebrating that auspicious day with
bonfires and illuminations, repeat "aristocracy, aristo¬
cracy" a few dozen times, and see whether it will suit
the metre of the " star-spangled banner." If he cannot
" make it go," let him forthwith call on some " circuit
rider," or "presiding elder," to " raise the tune." And
if the music still grates, we advise him to call at once on
some of the " doctors" of " our Episcopacy"—and they are
neither few nor far between—and submit to an auricular
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
293
operation. Then shall the " divine right" of- this "priv¬
ileged class"—this " aristocracy"—melt upon his tympanum
as sweetly as the strains of the harp of JEolus. At least,
if it does not, " I cannot help it," says Mr. Abbey—nor
can we. We can only advise; and if this "mal-formed
or mal-educated " " ear " is go dull that it will not hear
our advice, our skirts are clear. It will be seen that
Mr. Abbey agrees with Mr. Johnson, in pronouncing the
Methodist Church government " an aristocracy."
As to the clause in the resolution transferring " all
the property of the Methodist Episcopal Church in
meeting houses, parsonages, &c., &c., to the contingent
" Southern organization," which declares said resolution
binding " so far asn it " can be of force in the premises," we
answer that it did have " force in the premises," because
this property is now owned by the Church, South, in
virtue of the passage of that resolution. Originally, all this
property was deeded to the Methodist Episcopal Church,
and in 1844, that Church relinquished its title to it in
favor of another organization known as the " Methodist
Episcopal Church, South," provided such an organization
should be established; and this lattef organization now
holds that property, we repeat, in virtue of that relin¬
quishment.
But there were sundry " protests" filed to the prin¬
ciples on which this suit was decided. The " Louisville
Conference" protested, "Mr. Elliott and others" pro¬
tested! This all sounds very well; but what did it
amount to? 'Nothing — absolutely nothing! If the
Northern division had refused to relinquish its claim
upon, and the Southern division had refused to accept,
294
A DISCUSSION ON
the dividend, on the humiliating terms on which it was
made, that would have been a sensible "protest." No,
Brother Hamill: Your Church, South, gained the suit;
but with it " our Episcopacy" gained an authentic ex¬
position, which has been placed upon the judicial
records of the country, and which ten thousand protests
can never erase. We do not wonder at your zeal and
ingenuity in attempting to ward off the odium which that
decision fastens upon your ecclesiastical escutcheon.
Like the blood of the murdered Duncan, on the fair hand
of the Scottish queen, " all the perfumes of Arabia never
can-sweeten it." Your Episcopacy may well exclaim, as
did an English nobleman when he received the news of
the battle of Bunker's Hill, "Another such a victory, and
we are ruined}"
Brother Hamill admits that the General Conference
could have "become Socinian," "Presbyterian or Bap¬
tist" in " government and doctrine," if it had " chosen
to do so," as Mr..Lord alleged; but then he says, "there
is another could and another would, too, behind all this
matter-? that is, the Annioal Conferences could have taken
every one of the delegates on their return home, and
tried and expelled them, and they would most certainly
have done it too." Very well. It seems, then, that the
Churches could not and would not have dared to do it.
So that here is another aspect of Episcopacy—the pro¬
cess of " trying and expelling "■—in which it " admits
no constituents—and has no constituents." Whether a
body of men, (the clergy,) acting in the capacity of a
General Conference, would act the reverse in a State
Conference, involves a draft upon human credulity,
METHODIST EPISCOPACY
295
rather too heavy to he honored. In point of sovereign¬
ty, which takbs precedence, the General or the Statf^
Conferences? To ask This question is to answer*it.
Apropos, we will here introduce another - extract from
the opinion of the court. Judge Nelson says: "These
travelling preachers represented the sovereign power
of the government, and were responsible to no earthly
tribunal for the mode and manner of its exercise. * *" *
As they might have constructed any number of separate
and distinct organizations in their first fraternal associ¬
ation and effort in the fulfilment of this mission, accord¬
ingly as it might seem to them best, so was it equally
in their power at any subsequent period of their labors.
The power remained unchanged."—Appendix to Prop.
Case, p. 12. * ' -
But the conclusions to which our brother arrives up¬
on the first part of his article, merit a moment's atten¬
tion. He considers, First: That the Book Concern is a
" holy charity." This we have not debated, nor is it in¬
volved in the issue between us. He jnight just as well
have represented us as saying, that the preaching of
the gospel by Methodist ministers was anti-Republican
because of their arbitrary appointments to their stations
by the bishops. But his second conclusion is decidedly
original. He says, " The principles in its (the,Property
Case) adjudication demonstrate that in all grand as well
as minor movements in the Methodist Episcopal Church,
the laity exercise an all-controlling influence /" And he ar¬
rives at this conclusion, too, after admitting in so many
words, that so far as the "Property Case" was con¬
cerned, the pleadings of the lawyers and the decision of
the court, which we had quoted, were true, to wit: That
296
A DISCUSSION ON
they "admit bo constituents, and have no constituents 1"
^y} he enters into an elaborate argument.to prove,
that the laity ought not to have any sort of control over
that " holy charity."—And 'yet its " adjudication demon¬
strates [yes, demonstkates!] .... that the laity exercise
an.all-controlling influence!!" We have seen some speci¬
mens of logic in which a may ie in the premises became
a must be in the conclusion; but we never before saw it
" demonstrated" how a cypher in the premises became an
" all-controlling " numerical quantity in the conclusion.
It will do to place in "Barnum's Museum" beside Bishop
Taylor's grand discovery of " truth without evidence."
Speaking of Pedo-baptism, that astute divine says: "I
think there is so much to be pretended against it (Pedo-
baptism) which I believe to be the truth, that there is
much more truth than evidence on our side!" So it seems
that the Bishop's discovery is likely to serve " our
Episcopacy" a very clever turn. Nor less remarkable
is his third conclusion, to wit: "That the government
of Methodisnp in all respects in which the Bible gives
scope for human legislation, is modelled as Mr. Choate
says, after our secular union." That is to say, after a
lengthy review of a law suit, in which the whole polity
of Episcopal Methodism was in evidence before the
court, and in which it-was decided that "the laymen of
the Church have no part or connection with its govern¬
mental organization, and never had—that they (the
preachers) comprise the embodiment of its power, eccle¬
siastical and temporal—that when assembled in General
Conference according to the usages and discipline of
the Church, they represent themselves, and have no con¬
stituents,"—our brother comes to the sage conclusion
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
291
that " the government of Methodism'.... is modelled
after our secular union!!" But comment upon this con¬
clusion would be paying the understanding of the reader
rather an equivocal compliment. We may safely leave
this to the capacity of those who are competent to de¬
cide which was baptized, Philip or the eunuch. How
far " the Bible gives scope for human legislation," is a
desideratum which Episcopacy ought to define. It
would be interesting to know how far, and in what par¬
ticulars, the Divine Law may be amended by the-inter¬
position of "human legislation"
The sum of our answer is this:
I. Our review of the "Church Property Case" has
been palpably misconstrued. Brother Hamill makes us
affirm that of the object for which the Book and Chartered
Fund was raised, which we affirmed of the principles on
which the Court ordered it to be divided between the
North and the South.
II. Bro. Hamill derives his testimony from the wrong
source,. He relies mostly upon Mr. Choate, the counsel
for the defendants, (the Northern division of the Church)
who lost the suit. We derived ours from Messrs. Lord,
Johnson, and the Court—the party who gained the sidt.
Our testimony is taken from the accredited judicial records
of the country. That is to say, he quotes his exposition
of Episcopacy from the counsel whose arguments were de¬
clared sophistical ly the Court, and were therefore overruled;
we quoted from the counsel whose arguments wei e substan¬
tially adopted by the Court as its decision.
III. Our antagonist maintains that the principles
which decided that suit; were false in their application
to all other matters of Church polity, but true in their
298
A DISCUSSION ON
application to the Book Concern Fund. We have prov¬
ed, from the decision, of the Court, that these principles
pervade the entire governmental economy of Methodist
Episcopacy.
MISCELLANEOUS.
The "miscellaneous" items in his article scarcely need
a response. Mr. Wesley is the father of American Me¬
thodists ; indeed the Methodist ministry did not presume
to organize their Church until he granted them, the privilege.
Hence, we thought it perfectly legitimate to quote from
his writings. The " madmen of Munster," as they have
been called, sustain no such relation to Baptists, and never
did. They were composed, as we have proved, of Ca¬
tholics, Lutherans, Baptists, and " the larger portion,"
says Buck, " having no religious principles."
It is far easier to class us with Campbellites, is it not,
Bro. Hamill, than to answer our argument on the sub¬
ject of " creeds?" We still maintain that " human creeds
may, as mere matters of convenience, make pretty good
servants, but most intolerable masters."
It seems, then, that " inveighing against the doctrine
of our Church" is not a crime of sufficient magnitude to
exclude one from the communion table of the Methodist
Episcopal Church, although, if persisted in, it is a suffi¬
cient ground of exclusion from the Church. The Me¬
thodist Church is, therefore, more sacred than the table
of the Lord!—since the man who would be excluded
from the one would be admitted to the other—"immoral
conduct" being the only ground of exclusion from the
latter*
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
299
As to the error of which our brother supposes he has
convicted us, we have only to say, that if we erred, the
Book of Discipline is responsible. In answer to the
question: " What shall be the business of the quarterly
Conference?" the answer is: "To hear complaints, and
to receive and try appeals." And since the. "fifth re¬
strictive rule" guaranties to-the members the privilege
" of trial before the Society, or by a committee, and of
an appeal," we really supposed that the tribunal to which
the appeal was made, was competent to redress the
wrong. And we really supposed that when Mr. Hard¬
ing appealed to the General Conference, in 1§44, he did
it in the hope of being reinstated. Now, suppose the
Quarterly Conference restores a private member after
his exclusion, what relation does he sustain to the
Church? Our statement was substantially true, that
the Quarterly, Annual, and General Conferences could
try, suspend, or expel members—if ministers are mem¬
bers. The jurisdiction of the Quarterly Conference is
confined to private members and local preachers—that
of the Annual and "General Conferences, to the travelling
clergy. As these two latter bodies "admit no constitu¬
ents," of course they cannot permit such small matters
to come up before their august deliberations.
But our brother says that we, the pastor of a Baptist
Church, have more power in the trial of a member, than
he, the pastor pf a Methodist Church. Now, what is the
meaning of the fallowing question and answer, in the
Discipline, page 55, last edition:
Quest. 1. What are the duties of the elder, deacon, or
preacher, who has the- special charge of a circuit or
station?
300
A DISCUSSION ON
Ans. 5. To receive, try, and expel members, according
to the form of the Discipline.
We humbly submit, that if we were to undertake this
summary process in the Church in Tuskegee, about the
first expulsion would be the pastor.
"The sad anarchy and confusion, called Baptist Church
government," to which our .brother has so often referred,
is, it seems, the argumentum ad hominem, since it proves,
that if our government is Eepublican, his is more so!
It is well that our brother added "tastes will differ."
We propose giving an illustration of this, for his spe¬
cial edification. The following anecdote is as well au¬
thenticated as any which has descended to us from the
illustrious statesman and patriot to whom it refers. It
was originally communicated to the " Christian Watch¬
man," several years ago, by the Rev. Dr. Fishback, of
Lexington, Ky. We extract it from Dr. Reynolds'
" Church Polity," page 22?:
" Mr. Editor: The following circumstance which occur¬
red in the State of Virginia, relative to Mr. Jefferson, was
detailed to me by Elder Andrew Tribble, about six years
ago, who since died, when ninety-two or three years old.
The facts may interest some of your readers. Andrew
Tribble was the pastor of a small Baptist Church, which
held its monthly meetings at a short distance from Mr.
Jefferson's house, eight or ten years before the American
Revolution. Mr. Jefferson attended the meetings of the
Church for several months in Succession, q,nd, after one
of them asked Elder Tribble to go honae and dine with
him, with which he complied.
Mr. Tribble asked Mr. Jefferson how he was pleased
with their Church government. Mr. Jefferson replied,
METHODIST EPISCOPACY
301
that it had struck him with great force, and had inter¬
ested him much; that he considered it the only form of pure
Democracy that then existed in the world, and had conclud¬
ed that it would be the best plan of government for the
American Colonies. This was several years before the
Declaration of Independence. To what extent this prac¬
tical exhibition of religious liberty and equality operat¬
ed on Mr. Jefferson's mind, in forming his views and
principles of religious and civil freedom, which were so
ably exhibited, I will not say."
THE CONTRAST.
We shall dispose of what Brother Hamill says in re¬
gard to our article entitled "The Contrast," as briefly
as possible. We have already examined the positions
assumed by Mr. Choate, which Bro. Hamill sq frequent¬
ly quotes in this part of his article, and have proved
from the decision of the Court that they were untenable;
and hence, if there be any credit due that decision, they
are to be " ruled out" of this discussion. And whether
the very modest pledge he has given, "that that 'Con-
trasV shall be numbered with the things that are 'twice
dead and plucked up by the roots,'" will be seen in the
sequel.
First: We have permitted Mr. Choate to state what
he meant by the declaration* quoted on the first point
himself. But it is maintained that the preachers who
composed the Conference of 1184, were elected to the
ministry by the votes of the people! And this made
them the representatives of the people for life, in every
position they might choose to fill! If a Methodist So¬
ciety recommends a young man to Conference, as pos-
26
302 A DISCUSSION ON
sessing gifts and qualifications for the ministry of the
gospel, and the Conference accepts him, and lie is by
the action of that Conference, (for they, not the Society,
are the ultimate tribunal to decide who shall be receiv¬
ed into their fraternity,) recognized for life, as a mem¬
ber ex officio, of their body, we are asked to believe that
this is equivalent to the frequent periodical elections of
our representatives to our National and State legisla¬
tures !! But the kimbo arms, the arch smile, and askance
gaze of the reader, which, being interpreted, means—
"you don't say so?"—relieves us of the necessity of any
further exposure of this draft upon his credulity.
Secondly: It is alleged in answer to the second point
of our " Contrast," that the act of joining the Methodist
Episcopal CJiurch is a voluntary adoption 6f its govern¬
ment. And so when an American citizen voluntarily
expatriates himself, and emigrates to Eussia, he volun¬
tarily adopts that form of government. But does this
act of his make him a party to the original formation of
the Kussian government? And does it transform that
Autocracy into a Kepublic? Yet this is the argument
of our brother. Furthermore: Congress is governed by
a written Constitution, adopted by a power superior to
it—the people—whereas the General Conference of tra¬
velling preachers is governed by a constitution adopted
by themselves, and they recognize no superior power to
themselves. Hence the fallacy of his argument in com¬
paring a Conference with our National Congress.
Thirdly: The division of the Church in 1844, was an
"essential change in its constitution," as much so as if
they had destroyed its Episcopal element. And yet this
"essential change" was not submitted to the action of
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
303
a single society of laymen in the Union. The bishops
and travelling preachers decided the fate of that mea¬
sure, from its alpha to its omega. The unity of a " Ge¬
neral Conference jurisdiction," was no more nor less
" intact" before the separation, than " all other depart¬
ments of the Church." This we have proved from the
judicial records of the country, beyond all cavil.
Fourthly: Judges of the United States Court.are nom¬
inated by the President, who is elected every four years
by the popular suffrage, and confirmed by the Senate,
whose members are elected every six years. But why
has he appealed to the Supreme Judges and the army
and naval officers of the United States? Do they make
the laws which govern this confederacy? Why did he
not appeal to our Legislative Assemblies—the law-mak¬
ing powers of our State and National Government?—
Echo answers, why?
Fifthly: We will let the Discipline answer our bro¬
ther's argument on our fifth point. "Who shall'attend
the Annual Conference? Ans. All the travelling preach¬
ers who are in full connection, and those who are to be
received into full connection."—Discipline, pp. 39-40.
" Who shall compose the General Conference, &c. Ans.
1. The General Conference shall be composed of one
member for every fourteen members of each Annual
Conference, to be appointed either by seniority or choice,
at the discretion of such Annual Conference," &c. That
is, " the travelling preachers comprise the embodiment
of its power, ecclesiastical and temporal," as the Court
affirmed: "Not a modicum of power was left elsewhere,"
says Johnson. And yet the State and General Confer¬
ences, composed of the travelling preachers and their re-
304
A DISCUSSION ON
preservatives, are "wonderfully analogous to our Nation¬
al Congress, whose members are chosen by the people and
their representatives! There is another thing that must
be " numbered among those which are ' twice dead, and
plucked up by the roots,'" before thisjgan be swallowed
—the common sense of mankind.
Sixthly: And is there any analogy between the Senate
of the United States, chosen for six years, and respon¬
sible to " a constituency," and one recognized and ap¬
pointed by their peers-for life, and which "admits 110
constituents," and is " responsible only to themselves?"
The Southern Baptist Convention is not a legislative
body. It is a merely voluntary assemblage—and each
State may send as many and as few delegates to it as
it chooses. They do not pretend to interfere with
Church polity, and therefore cannot infringe upon the
rights of the Churches.
Our seventh, eleventh, and fifteenth points are identi¬
cal with our fifth, says Brother Hamill, and he refers us
to his answer to that for his answer to these. Let us
see: In our fifth item, we alluded to the manner of elect¬
ing the members of our State and National legislatures.
In our seventh, we alleged that the members so chosen,
represented and were responsible to " a constituency,"
in contradistinction to Methodist Conferences, which
"had no constituents." In our eleventh, we showed the
combination of the Democratic and Republican elements
in our civil government, both of which were wanting in
" our Episcopacy." And in our fifteenth, we referred to
the effort made by sundry memorialists, in 1824 and
1828, to make the Methodist Episcopal Church govern¬
ment representative, by which it could have been some-
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
305
what assimilated to. the form of a free government; hut
that the dignitaries of that Church rebuked the memo¬
rialists in as offensive terms as ever fell from the lips of
a despot: " Pardon us if we know no such rights, if we
comprehend no such privileges." Whether these seve¬
ral points are identical, and whether they are " twice
dead, and plucked up by the roots," may be safely refer¬
red to the judicious reader.
Eighthly: We supposed Bishop Hamline spoke
officio, when he said that the will of the bishop, presiding
elder, or circuit rider, "was omnipotent in the premises"
—that " there was no tribunal to cure his errors or rec¬
tify bis wrongs," and that the aggrieved party " must
submit." We will, therefore, station ex-Bishop Ham-
line to guard that tree from the ruthless hand of our
brother. We rather surmise that the ex-bishop will
give him a little trouble before he succeeds in " pluck¬
ing it up by the roots."
Ninthly: We may imitate the example of Bro. Hamill,
and refer the reader to our answer to his strictures on
our first point, for an answer to this, begging only to
introduce the following extract from an article which
appeared in the " Philadelphia Church Advocate," an
able Methodist organ, and which is from the pen of a
distinguished Methodist writer. "In the Methodist
Episcopal Church, no one, except the travelling preach¬
ers, has any rights. All that the local preachers, ex-
horters, class-leaders, and private members possess, are
mere privileges, for which they are indebted to the sove¬
reign will and pleasure of their ' Divine Bights,' rulers."
Tenthly: Did the memorialists, in 1824 and 1828,
simply ask the privilege of " scattering their preacheis
306
A DISCUSSION ON
to the four winds?" Let the seventy-five thousand Pro¬
testant Methodists of the United States answer.
Twelfthly: We are not aware that " protests" can
change facts. We can well conceive how "leading
men in the Church, North," should "protest" against
the decision of the court, for they lost nearly half a
million of dollars by it. But that the party who gained
the suit, should "protest" against the principles on
which it was decided, and upon which alone it could
have been determined in their favor, and yet accept the
dividend, would place " our Episcopacy" in a humiliat¬
ing attitude-which would disarm contempt.
Thirteenthly: All the "standards" of "our Episco¬
pacy" uniformly refer to John Wesley as the sole founder
of Methodism in Europe and America. See section first
of the Discipline. We also refer the reader to that part
of this article, in which we have shown in what respects
the Convention that formed our Federal Constitution,
was analogous to the Conference that formed the "Book
of Discipline," as alleged by Mr. Choate, to wit: That
the bodies of each did their work and then disappeared.
■ Fourteenthly: Bishop Bascom shall vindicate this
point for us. In his " Declaration of Rights," drawn up
during the agitation of the " representative " question
in the Methodist Episcopal Church, he says: "A gov¬
ernment uniting the legislative, judicial, and executive
powers in the same men, is an absurdity in theory, and
in practice, tyranny. The executive power, in every
government, should be subordinate to the legislative,
and the judicial independent of both. Whenever, there¬
fore, it happens that these three departments of govern¬
ment are in the hands of the same body of men, and
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
301
these men not the representatives of the people, first
making the laws, then executing them, and, finally, the
sole judges of their own acts, there is no liberty, the
people are virtually enslaved, and liable to be ruined
at any time." Art. 6th.
Sixteenthly: We asserted in this item that all the
powers, in the governmental economy of Methodism,
were in the hands of the clergy. And if we have not
succeeded in proving this, we should despair of proving
that the three angles of a triangle are equal to two right
angles. " The bishop appoints the minister," says a Me¬
thodist writer, over twenty years ago, and we presume
it is the same now; "the minister appoints the class-
leader and stewards; these appoint'the sexton, who, in
his turn, appoints the grave-digger. So that, from him
who soars aloft, and overlooks God's heritage, down to
him who delves in the earth, and buries the bodies of
the saints, all derive their power from the ministry, and
all are responsible to them only, for their proceedings."
Quoted in the Iron Wheel, p. 313.
Our seventeenth item needs no defence. Every deed
to Meeting houses, &c., &c., is taken in the name of the
Methodist Episcopal Church, South. Discipline, p. 209.
Every trustee is originally appointed by the preacher
in charge, or presiding elder, and must be a member of
the Methodist Episcopal Church. Discipline, p. 218.
Every vacancy by death or otherwise, in the boards, is
to be filled by the nominee of the " stationed minister
or preacher." Idem. Whe/i these facts are denied, we
will publish the " form of a -deed" laid down in the
Discipline.
Has Brother Hamill succeeded, reader, in killing with
308
A DISCUSSION ON
a double death, these "trees of" ^-''righteousness" in
the Methodist vineyard, according to his modest boast?
JSTqw, we frankly confess that, if we had planted them
there, it would be a bare question of relative power be¬
tween him and ourself as to whether they should remain.
But as they were planted there by the "fathers" of "our
Episcopacy," it materially changes the parties to the
contest. We hope he will succeed ultimately in "pluck¬
ing them up by the roots," and " casting them into the
fire." The travelling clergy of the whole United States
have them under special guardianship; and not until
our brother shall associate with himself a power which
the laity of his Church only can supply, will he be able
to root up this noxious growth.
But to drop the figure, we maintain that every one
of our seventeen points is sustained by evidence which
is incontestible. Every fact which they respectively
involve, we have proved, either from the "standards"
of Methodism, or from the judicial records of the coun¬
try. We are only responsible for grouping them to¬
gether in the form in which they are there presented.
Brother Hamill does not deny a single fact there pre¬
sented. He only excepts to the principles on which
"the Property Case" was decided; and in this, he be¬
comes the antagonist of the Circuit Court of the United
States, and not ours; and in this position we leave him,
so far as his effort at "killing" and "plucking up" is
concerned.
A word in regard to this allusion to Baptist Church
government. He premises his strictures upon our
"contrast" by saying, that "The Bible contains all the
doctrines and essential principles of discipline which
METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 309
govern gospel Churches." Then how is it, that those
who adopt the Bible as their constitution—their only
rule of faith and practice,—*are represented by him, as
adopting a " system of sad anarchy and confusion, call¬
ed Baptist Church government,"—as possessing " a dis¬
jointed scheme, yclept Baptist Church government?"
Was the very form of government adopted by the Apos¬
tolic Churches, a "disjointed system" of "anarchy and
confusion?" Yerily, it requires no little temerity to as:
sert this. But if not; if the Apostolic Churches really
had something which could be accurately called Church
government, and a denomination of Christians, in this
day adopt it as theirs, by what system of logic can it be
proved now to be a " system of anarchy and confusion?"
Or is it impossible for Baptists to understand as plain
a book as the New Testament? This will not be pre¬
tended; and we conclude, therefore, that the form of go¬
vernment adopted by Christ himself, and his Apostles
who wrote as moved upon by the Holy Ghost, is far
preferable, to that despotic " scheme yclept" Method¬
ist Episcopacy, adopted under a special dispensation
from John Wesley, by sixty travelling preachers, in
1184.
We are glad that our brother has signified his- wil¬
lingness, heartily to co-operate with us in publishing in
book form, this discussion. We hereby agree to furnish
one-half of the expense necessary for the publication of
say four thousand copies, more or less, so soon as Bro.
Hamill or his brethren shall furnish the other half. We
suppose it will be as readily bought by Methodists as
310
A DISCUSSION ON
Baptists; and if so, there will be no difficulty in dispos¬
ing- of four thousand copies in six months after it is
printed. At least we are willing- to take two thousand
copies, and become responsible for their sale, so far as
the Baptists are concerned; and we have no reason to
doubt that Brother Hamill will do the same in behalf of
his brethren. In the event that an equitable arrange¬
ment can be consummated between us, in regard to its
joint publication, we will cheerfully agree to leave out
our articles now in course of preparation, on " Church
Government;" albeit, we cannot see what very great
harm it would do our Methodist brethren to read them.
We heartily reciprocate all the kind terms in which
our brother holds us. We, can say most seriously that
we have not "set down aught in malice." We have spo¬
ken plainly, but kindly, as becomes all who profess god¬
liness. And whether "our Episcopacy" shall prove in
the issue to be a transplant from Jerusalem or Babylon;
whether it sh^ll prove to be an offshoot of the tree of
liberty, or the green ivy which mistaken hands have
planted at its root, and which is ultimately to enfold and
crush within its deadly embrace that majestic tree, we
can but wish the highest degree of temporal and spirit¬
ual prosperity to our worthy antagonist in this dis¬
cussion.
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
311
LETTER FROM MESSRS. CLOPTON, BILBRO, AND
MAYES.
Rev. Samuel Henderson:
Dear Brother,—At the close of the communication con¬
cluding on your part, the discussion between yourself
and our pastor, Rev. E. J. Hamill, you address to the
undersigned a respectful communication, to which we
feel it is our duty to reply. In consequence of the
republication in your columns, of an article from the
Western Watchman, reflecting directly upon the econ¬
omy of the Methodist Church, not in a religious, but in
a political point of view, and thus, indirectly, upon the
patriotism of the members of the Methodist Church, we
felt that self-respect, as well as attachment to the
Church of our choice, called upon us to ask at your
hands admission into your colums, of a defense pre¬
pared by the pastor of our Church, against the malign¬
ant aspersions cast upon Methodism, by the anonymous
author of the article in question. It was not the inten¬
tion of our pastor to have carried the matter beyond
that expose of the principles of the Methodist Church
government to which our names were appended, had
you not seen proper, a right we by no means question,
to enter the arena and contend that the Methodist
Church government was anti-Republican. In this as¬
pect of things, we had a right to expect from our pastor,
and were convinced .of his ability to prepare, a defense
312
A DISCUSSION ON
of our Church economy. We have read the discussion
with interest, and were much gratified with the ability
and christian kindness with which it was conducted.
We are pleased to bear testimony to the fact that in
our opinion it will tend to draw more closely, and not
to sever, the bond of christian union, which should exist
between the two Churches. We congratulate both
parties to this debate upon this happy result of the
discussion; and we greatly desire to see it published
in book form, that it may do good more extensively, by
a wider circulation in both Churches. We will cheer¬
fully enter into any arrangements which can be made,
to secure its publication and promote its increased cir¬
culation.
We are indebted tq you for the courtesies extended
to our pastor, and for the kind regards you have ex¬
pressed for him and for ourselves.
Respectfully yours,
DAVID CLOPTON,
JOHN R. B1LBRQ,
ROBT. L. MAYES.
Tuskegee, Ala., Afov. 2, 1855.
ANSWER.
The foregoing communication was handed in last
week, but owing to the great length of the closing ar¬
ticles of the discussion, it was crowded out. It is in
response to a note we addressed' to the gentlemen whose
names are signed to it, some two months since, at what
METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 313
we then supposed, from the long silence of Bro. Hamill,
was the end of the discussion between us. And let us
here say to our Methodist brethren, that We never haye,
and- God forbid that we ever should, seek to deprive ahy
man or set o.f men, the right to adopt any form of
Church government they please. But when such form
is adopted by them—there is a co-relative right belong¬
ing to others—and that is the right to discuss its prin¬
ciples. But the abstract right to adopt Episcopacy, or
to live under an Episcopal government, is one thing,
and the right to call such a government a Democratic
Republic, is quite a different thing. When, therefore,
we chose to exercise a " right which" you " by no means
question," to investigate the claims of your ecclesiasti¬
cal polity to Republicanism, we did so for the sole pur¬
pose of showing that a government by the' clergy was
not a government by the people; that whatever civil
rights and privileges were guarantied to the laity of
the Methodist Episcopal Church by our free government
—Episcopacy "knew no such rights and comprehended
no such privileges." And we do honestly maintain, that
so long as Methodists uphold their present governmental
organization, so long do they practically and theoreti¬
cally repudiate, in their ecclesiastical capacity, the spi¬
rit and genius of American Democracy. And if their
worthy pastor has succeeded in proving to their satis¬
faction, that their " Church'economy,'* every department
of which is administered by the clergy—which "has no
constituents"-—which refuses to place grave questions
"at the feet of a Democracy"—which is ■" absolutely ah
aristocracy"—is, nevertheless, quite Democratic and
Republican—all we have to say is, they are far more
21
314
A DISCUSSION ON
easily satisfied with religious than with civil polity.
We suppose if we should undertake to prove to them,
that a political compact, organized upon the identical
principles of Episcopal Methodism, was quite homoge¬
neous with our free institutions, they might, indeed, con¬
cede that we were honest at heart, but certainly not a
very safe expounder of Democracy and Republicanism.
For example, suppose our revolutionary war had proved
a failure, and the colonies had been reduced to a state
of servitude again to the British Crown, would any ra¬
tional man ever have suspicioned Episcopal Methodism
as possessing the first element either of Democracy or
Republicanism? With what exultation and pride would
they, in such an event, have pointed to the part which
their illustrious founder, John Wesley, and his first mis¬
sionaries to this countiy, took in that memorable strug¬
gle, in denouncing our forefathers as rebels, and affirm¬
ing that they had no just cause to take up arms against
their sovereign! Indeed, their preachers at least might
have secured as high a commendation from George III.
as the Baptists did from George Washington.
For the kind terms in which these brethren speak,
both of the ability and spirit of the discussion, we are
much obliged. They live in the immediate community
in which it has occurred—have read it all—and are
therefore prepared to, speak understanding^. But how
different has it been viewed by some of the accredited
organs of their Church! By these we have been alter¬
nately denounced during its progress, as being guilty
of " the lowest piece of religious demagogueism 'which
has yet transpired"—as " a legitimate child of the father
of lies"—as "ignorant of the subject" we were discussing
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
315
as " accuser of the brethren"—as uttering " self-evi-
dently malicious misrepresentations/' &c. &c. Now,
these brethren declare in their communication: "We
have read the discussion with interest, and were much
gratified with the ability and Christian, kindness with
which it was conducted." In this instance, at least, we
must invert the sentiment of the poet, and say:
" 'Tis distance lends" repulsion " to the view!"
Being desirous, when the discussion first opened, that
" it might do good more extensively by a wider circula¬
tion in both Churches," than our paper could give it, we
requested Bro. Hamill to secure its publication in some
one of the "Advocates," as an act of reciprocal courtesy,
and we are quite sorry that he failed in the effort. This
defeire has not abated in the slightest degree; and \Ve
are ready to negotiate any equitable arrangement, by
which its " increased circulation" may be promoted.
We assure these brethren, that the courtesy we have
extended to their pastor has been quite cordial from
first to last; a courtesy, by the way, which we never
have known extended to a Baptist by any one of the
" Advocates." But a few weeks since, a violent assault
was made upon Dr. Baker, a Baptist minister of Georgia,
in the columns of the "Nashville Christian Advocate,"
by a Mr. Mills, a Methodist clergyman, to which Dr.
Baker made a respectful reply, asking the editor of that
paper to insert it, and this act of justice was denied him!
Even while we write, we observe a similar instance of
injustice on the part of the " Texas Christian Advocate."
The treatment we have received at the hands of these
316
A DISCUSSION ON
" Advocates" is too well known to our readers, to be
more than alluded to here. We know of no political
editor in the Union, whose policy is governed by such
a code of morals. The surveillance of a "star chamber,"
or a French " Emperor," was never more rigid and pro-
scriptive than that which keeps watch and ward over
the columns of these journals, and assumes to denounce
every attempt to expose the polity of their denomina¬
tion, not agreeable to them, as impertinent and unchar¬
itable. With this, however, we have nothing to do—
only to pursue a course exactly the reverse of theirs.
Indeed, we wish no better evidence that we are right
than this. Our convictions of duty and justice are pre¬
scribed in a " book of discipline" which, so far from hold¬
ing the penalty of exclusion in terrorem over us for " in¬
veighing against the doctrines and discipline" of any de¬
nomination, which we believe unfounded in the Word of
God, commands us to " prove all things, and hold fast
to that which is good." Hence " the courtesies extend¬
ed" to their pastor, and " the kind regards" we have ex¬
pressed for them individually, is the result, not so much
of personal esteem (although we are not wanting in
this) as of Christian principle—and we claim no thanks
for either.
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
LETTER TIL
THE DISCUSSION.
Three errors of fact; Their correction requested.
Brother Henderson:
There are several grave errors of fact, not of opinion,
in your last article. As that article closes the discus¬
sion, I do not offer you a reply; but simply state the
errors in question, with the conviction that you will do
us justice, in, the points specified.
First error of fact: In your examination of my review
of the contrast, under the third head, you say of the di¬
vision of the Church in 1844, " This essential change in
the constitution of the Church, was not submitted to
the action of a single society of laymen in the Union."
Now, it is unaccountable to me, how you could have
fallen into this error, upon a fact of such vital import¬
ance to the question under discussion. I had repeatedly
called your attention to the fact, that the laity of the
entire South, demanded the division. I had quoted Mr.
Fancher's remark, " That the most excited meetings,
soon? occurred in all parts of the South, and the most
indignant resolutions were passed.'' I had referred to
the fact, that the Rev. Mr. Curry, a distinguished minis-
318
A DISCUSSION ON
ter of the Georgia Conference, was required to vacate
his charge of the Columhus Church, by the members, on
account of his opposition to the action of that Church,
on the question of the division; and, moreover, the re¬
port of the Church Property Case abounds with such
testimony. For example, in an "Address to the minis¬
ters and members of the slave-holding States," drawn
up before they left New York, by the very delegates to
the General Conference of 1844, who proposed the plan
of separation; they say, " The plan does not decide that'
division shall take place; but simply, and it is thought
securely, provides that it may, if it be found necessary.
Of this necessity, you (the ministers and members) are
to be the judges." '
Again, in the proceedings of the South Carolina Con¬
ference, p. 113, it is said: "Kesolutions to that effect
(namely, the division of the Church) have been adopted
by the Quarterly Conferences of all the circuits and
stations without any exception, and in many, perhaps
in most of them, by other meetings also, which have
been called expressly for the purpose; and in some of
them, by meetings held at every preacKing place where there
was a society. In the whole field of our Conference dis¬
trict, one individual only has been heard to express
himself doubtfully as to the expediency of a separate
jurisdiction."
Again, in the address to the Louisville Convention of
the Methodist Church, South, which sums up the action
of our entire Conferences, and membership, it is declared,
" It was found that both as to the members of the An¬
nual Conferences, and the local ministry and membership of
our entire territory, the declaration had been sustained,
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
319
and a separate organization called for, by as great a ma¬
jority as ninety-five to five—that the number dissenting
should have been so smallj compared to the number of
those who have required us. to act, is to our minds conclus¬
ive proof of the absolute necessity of this a,ction.w
Church Property Case, p. 121. Of the truth of the fact,
that the laity did take action upbn the question of the
division of the Church, there are living witnesses by thous¬
ands.
You surely could not have read the entire report of
the Church Property Case. Had you read these ex¬
tracts from it, which I now quote, it would have been
impossible for you to have fallen into so great an error,
upon so fundamental a point. Of course, this correc¬
tion of your error should materially change your opin¬
ion of Methodism.
Second error of fact: "You say the preachers and
elders appoint all the class-leaders, stewards, and trus¬
tees who hold Church property—and preachers remove
at their pleasure their appointees." You are right with
regard to the appointment and removal of class-leaders,
though this discretionary power of the preacher is held
under strict accountability; but you are wrong about
trustees, and stewards. A new board of trustees may
be appointed by preachers, where the laws allow it;
but old boards of trustees fill their own vacancies by
■election, and trustees and stewards are accountable to
the Quarterly Conferences only, and cannot be removed
by either the preacher or the presiding elder.
Third error of fact: You quote Isaac Taylor as one,
whom " no man can suspect of being unfriendly to Me¬
thodism." Hear the Methodist Quarterly Review, of
320
A DISCUSSION ON
July, 1853, of his work: "On almost every page under
an ill-disguised affectation of candor, his secret enmity
may be discovered. This is a sufficient exposure of the
hypocritical enmity with which he praises the heart of
Wesley, as incapable of injuring any man in the small¬
est matter, while he charges him with upholding a
Church theory, on the ground of which heretics in troops
might consistently be burned."
Your own sense of honor, and of justice, will dictate
to you the propriety of correcting these errors of fact.
I am as ever, your brother in Christ,
E. J. HAMILL.
P. S. The Fourth Quarterly Conference of the Oak
Bowery circuit, Chambers county, passed resolutions
unanimously recommending the publication of the dis¬
cussion.
Signed, Jonathan Ware, Sec'y.
The Fourth Quarterly Conference of the Tuskegee
circuit, of which the Bev. Wm. B. Neal is pastor, passed
similar resolutions recommending the publication of the
discussion.
Signed, P. B. Appleby, Sec'y.
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
321
REPLY TO LETTER VII.
Misapprehension of argument; The first error of fact" may be cor¬
rected when the "standards" are mended, and the judicial records
of the country rectified; Second " error of fact;" Third " error of
fact;" The " seventh wonder;" Mutual call for the publication of
the discussion by Baptists and Methodists.
We very cheerfully insert the foregoing1 communica¬
tion from our worthy antagonist in the late discussion
on Episcopal Methodism. Far he it from us to persist
in " errors of fact," in reference to Episcopacy; especi¬
ally such " errors of fact" as " should materially change
our opinion of Methodism." The reader will he ahle to
judge how far these "errors" may he legitimately
charged to our account, at the close of this article.
In regard to the " first error of fact," we think that if
Brother Hamill had fully comprehended the drift of our
argument, <3n the " Property Case," it would have " ma¬
terially changed his opinion" of the "error" in question.
In that argument, we took it for granted, that the prin¬
ciples on which that case was decided by the (learned
tribunal to which it was referred, were true in their ap¬
plication to the whole system of Methodism. At least,
so thought the Court. These principles were, as argued
by the counsel who gained the suit, and as sustained by
the Court in its decision, that the General Conference of
322
A DISCUSSION ON
travelling preachers "admit no constituents"—that
they " have the power to create and to destroy"—that
" not a modicum of power is left elsewhere"—and, to
use the very language of the judges who decided the
suit, " when they (these travelling preachers) are as¬
sembled in General Conference, according to the usages
and discipline of the Church, they represent themselves, and
have-no constituents."
Our position is, That the laity in the Methodist Episco¬
pal Church, have, in a governmental sense, no power whatever.
And our review of the "Property Case" was intended
to sustain this position. Now, the only legitimate mode
of proving that we committed an error in saying that
the division of the Church, by the General Conference
in 1844, " was not submitted to the action of a single
society of laymen in the Union," is to appeal to the ac¬
tion of that body, in making that " essential change in
its constitution." Pursuing this course, we turn to the
original resolutions passed by that body in 1844, pro¬
viding for a division of the Church. If we had the space,
we would publish the whole series; but we have room
for only the fourth, which covers the whole ground in
debate between us. It is as follows:
" 4th. That whenever the Annual Conferences, by a
vote of three-fourths of all their members voting on the
third resolution, (which provided for a "change of the
sixth restrictive rule," so as to authorize an equitable
division of " the Book Concern and chartered Fund/')
shall have concurred in the recommendation to alter
the sixth restrictive article, the agents at New York
and Cincinnati shall, and they are hereby authorized
and directed to deliver over to any authorized agent or
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
323
appointee of the Church, South, should one he author¬
ized, all notes and book accounts against the ministers,
Church members, or citizens within its boundaries, with
authority to collect the same for the sole use of the
Southern Church, and that said agents also convey to
the aforesaid agent, or appointee, of the South, all the
real estate, and assign to him all the property, including
papers, stock, and all right and interest connected with
the printing establishments at Charleston, Richmond,
and Nashville, which now belong to the Methodist Epis¬
copal Church."
Now, observe distinctly, That the authority which is to
give force and effect to those resolutions—resolutions
which contemplate the most " essential change " in Me¬
thodism which has ever occurred in its history—is, not the
societies of laymen and local preachers, for they are never
named in such a connection, but the Annual Confebences of
bishops and travelling preachers. And this authority
is distinctly submitted to them in the first, third, fourth
and fifth resolutions passed by that body. They are the
only constituents authorized to act in the premises. We care
not if there were five hundred or five thousand " ex¬
cited meetings held in the SoutA" on that subject—we
care not how many " addresses " were aubmitted"to
the ministers and members of the slave-holding States,"
by the members of the Conference of 1844, on their indi¬
vidual responsibility, and after that body adjourned. The
question is, Whether the General Conference of 1844, in
passing the resolutions providing for a division of the
Church, RECOGNIZED IN THE LAITY an authority
competent to sit in judgment upon its acts and doings? Prove
this to us, Brother Hamill, and we will cheerfully and
824
A DISCUSSION ON
candidly acknowledge, that we committed an error in
saying that " this essential change was not submitted
to the action of a single society of laymen in the Union."
The most careless reader, it seems to us, must have un¬
derstood us to mean, in that sentence, that societies of
laymen, in the language of the Court, " have no part or
connection with its governmental organization, and
never had"—that General Conferences do not "submit"
their acts to the decision of laymen, in any sense of that
term—and that in the case to which we referred, the
tribunal which was to give force and effect to the reso¬
lutions was, not the laity, but the bishops and travelling
preachers, in their Annual Conference capacity. The privi¬
lege of holding public meetings to acquiesce in, and submit
to the action of their rulers, is one thing, and the EIGHT
to vote upon a vital question of Church organization, as
recognized constituents, is quite a different thing. We
think we could even appeal to Brother Hamill to make
this distinction.
Our brother thinks, of course, this correction of your
(our) error should materially change your (our) opinion
of Methodism. About as much, Bro. Hamill, as the re¬
cent public meetings in France and England, by which
the loyalty of the people in these nations was expressed
to their respective Sovereigns for the manner in which
they are prosecuting the war with Kussia, would "change
our opinion" of monarchy. Whenever your General
Conference shall recognize, in the laity, a constituency,
an authorized tribunal to "cure its errors and rectify its
wrongs"—whenever that body shall, in the plenitude of
its condescension, " place grave questions at the feet of
a Democracy"—THAT will "materially change our
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
325
opinion of Methodism." But until this is done, the
excited meeting's," 11 Mr. Curry," " addresses" from de¬
legates to " General Conferences," and " Conventions,"
may be multiplied foui'fold—we must persist in saying,
that the General Conference of 1844 did not submit the
resolutions which provided for a contingent division of
the Church, " to the action of a single society of laymen
in the Union," to give them effect. That body " knew
no such rights, and comprehended no such privileges."
We are soj'ry, therefore, that we cannot accommodate our
brother in this matter, small as it is. " Retract!" No;
not until the " Book of Discipline" is mended, and the
judicial records of the country are corrected.*
The " second error of fact" can be disposed of quite
easily. In saying that the preachers and elders appoint
all the class-leaders, stewards, and trustees, who hold
Church property, we stated a " substantial truth, with
circumstantial variations," as our law books would say.
The class-leaders and trustees are appointed by the
preacher in charge; and in case of a vacancy by death,
* The above correction of the first great error of fact, I do not
deem sufficient—but the facts are before tbe public. *1 submit to
their decision.
E. J. HAMILL.
We regret this. As our defence of the position, involving what
is called "the first great error of fact," is based upon evidence de¬
rived from official documents, emanating from the General Confer¬
ence and the judicial records of the country, we cannot believe that
the reader will* be as incredulous as our worthy opponent. We,
therefore, most cheerfully join in submitting the whole matter to
the same enlightened umpire.
Editor S. W. Baptist.
28
326
A .DISCUSSION ON
removal, or otherwise, in boards of trustees, as stated
-in. the latter part of the same article, the preacher nom¬
inates, and the hoard confirms. Stewards are nominat¬
ed by the " preacher having charge of the circuit," and
" confirmed or rejected by the quarterly Conference."—
(Discipline, p. 218.) Not wrong about trustees, Bro.
Hamill. " Old boards of trustees can fill their own vacan¬
cies," provided they vote for the nominee of the preacher. See
Discipline, p. 218. The only " error" we committed was
in classing stewards with class-leaders and trustees; and
this was not an ^rror if the old legal maxim he true, quid
faxit per alium, facit per se\ what a man does through an->
other, he does himself. And besides all this, Bro. Hamill
does not pretend that the societies of laymen have any
hand in these appointments. And this was the point we
were establishing in making that statement.
The " third error of fact" admits of a still easier solu¬
tion. We did not quote from Isaac Taylor, as one of
the " standards" of Methodism, but as an English writer
of accredited standing and ability. Any man who will
read the volume from which we quoted, must be impress¬
ed with the conviction, that while he totally disagrees
with Mr. Wesley and his followers, on their ecclesiasti¬
cal polity, he nevertheless held them in high respect.
Perhaps Mr. Taylor, like Judges Nelson and Betts, and
all other outsiders who have attempted to look into
the "mystery of Methodism," did not understand the sub¬
ject. " Our Episcopacy" must be the "seventh wonder
of the world," as neither the judiciary of .the country,
nor lawyers, nor scholars, nor indeed any of the rest of
mankind who belong to the uninitiated, can understand
it. It seems there must be something in the system
METHODIST EPISCOPACY.
327
which stultifies the intellect of every man who undertakes
to analyze it. His perceptions may be as clear as the
noon-day's sun upon every other question, but here, a
"horror of great darkness" instantly encompasses him!
His reasonings "may be true in their application" to all
other subjects, "but false in their application" to this!
Now, really, we must be pardoned for throwing out the
suggestion, that the fruitless searches which have been
made for the "Democratic element" in Episcopal Me¬
thodism, is not so much from the want of sight to detect. it,
as from the want of the material in the system.
We are gratified that two other " Quarterly Confer¬
ences" have expressed their approbation of the discus¬
sion, and their desire for its publication. Between fif¬
teen and twenty Baptist Associations in this State, re¬
presenting " a constituency" of about forty thousand,
have called on us to publish it.