Newspaper Page Text
ftonljjtrn Christian
,♦ 1 1 • 1
MACON, GA., FEBRUARY 16, 1860.
SUMMING UP.
We have now reached the conclusion of
our series of articles on the economy of
Methodism. We have dealt with general
principles—have avoided proposing changes
in detail. If we have suggested any speci
fic change, it has only been in illustration
of our general thought, rather than with a
purpose to advocate any one alteration, that is
proposed to the church. We have no plan.
Any one will suit us, which gives us an ef
ficient pastorate, and shows us religion, as
taught in the doctrines of Methodism,
spreading out from every congregation as a
centre of religious life and activity, carry
ing salvation to all who may, but who now
do not, hear the word, until the gospel is
preached not only over the continent but to
“every creature.” And we would add—with
this further condition, that our present sec
tional Methodism shall move out of her
restricted limits, and become a perma"
nent catholic church. A thorough work,
and an enduring , a 'pure and an unsectional
ized church are what we plead for. Who
ever shows us clearly how these are to be
had shall have us for a faithful follower.
We are not among those who believe that
the next General Conference will make such
changes in our economy as may be necessary
to secure all these results. Perhaps, it
ought not to make them, until the weighty
principles involved in our line of argument
are thoroughly considered.' We do not aspire
to be a revolutionist —we wish to see no vio
lent upheavals. If our opinions are correct,
they will in time be received; if they are
wrong, they ought not to prevail—nor do
we, in that case, wish that they should. Let
them be examined, weighed, discussed,
considered by the whole church. Until
this is done, perhaps it were best not to
change oui system very radically. We want
harmony—unanimity, if it can be secured.
If the opinions now offered should be
thought of sufficient importance to demand
grave consideration, we would suggest some
such course as this. Let the General Con
ference make such alterations as will meet
with general favor; and especially provide
for bringing into our fold, this year, as many
single or associated congregations, as we may
gather from beyond our present limits. Let
them, during the year, be formed into Con
ferences, and received to our communion, as it
is, with only these limited changes of polity.
Let vs go only so far to secure them, as is
consistent with harmony among ourselves.
But if any respectable number of the Gen
eral Conference think that further and more
radical changes may be made with profit to
the church, and may add largely to our num
bers, strength and stability, let that body
propose these changes to the church, not in
detail, but as general propositions to be
wrought out hereafter, and provide that if
they be accepted, then another Conference
shall be called next year to consummate the
changes, by working out the details. This
can be done by the Bishops, when the ac
tion of the church is reported to them.
This outline plan is meager. It is designed
only as a suggestion. We might suggest, in
addition, many minor details, but we do not
wish to embarrass the subject, f by drawing
attention from the main points. “Where
there is a will.there is a way.” If Southern
Methodism wills to take anew step, in ad
vance of her present position, she can find a
way of doing it without a revolution.
This plan furnishes one advantage that
we cannot have, if we act finally on every
proposed change, at the next Conference.
It will bring into our councils, beforehand,
all who propose to join us in adapting a so; m
of Methodism having no political tests of
membership, to all the wants of society, by
a development of the pastorate and of the
aggressive power of the church itself. It
unites them with us, in settling the details,
which ’inay have previously been accepted
by our church in their general principles.
It gives to Southern Methodism their wis
dom and experience; and enables us, to
present ourselves to the country under this
new economy, at once, as a catholic commu
nion, with a wide spread membership, and
not, as we would otherwise be, as the church
of a section, building up a system for our
selves, and then offering it to others beyond
our border. Suppose, for instance, we might;,
by some process, bring into our next General
Conference, worthy representatives of our
church from every State in the Union.
Would not this be considered a great gain ?
We cannot do this. But suppose we can
arrange to bring such together a year hence,
and could then, with the whole country rep
resented, make arrangements for rapid and
general growth immediately—will it be wise
to postpone the opportunity of adding so
much to our strength till the succeding reg
ular General Conference—four years long
er ?
On this subject we have no more to say.
Let our suggestions pass for what they are
worth—no more, no less. We wish now to
add a few paragraphs, somewhat more per
sonal, than we usually write.
The opinions we have advanced are novel.
In some aspects they may be unpalatable.
We, at least, are prepared to find that some
most worthy brethren are startled by them.
We suppose they will net be permitted to
pass without opposition—perhaps fierce at
tack. If so, we beg that the ©pinions ad
vanced, not the Editor or his motives, will
be the subject of debate. If there is to be
discussion, let the following propositions be
shown to be false, and we shall be convinced •
1. That Methodism does not grow as once
she did, because her system is aggressive
rather than conservative —pioneers well, but
does not do its work so thoroughly as to hold
the ground she has occupied by her wide
spread itineracy.
2. That in her system she has admirably
developed the aggressive functions of the
ministry, but does not make adequate pro
vision for the full exercise of the pastoral
function where it may be needed, and for
that thorough and permanent evangelization
of communities, that can be secured best by
working*congregations well organized under
working jmstors.
3. That system is best adapted to the
wants of settled society, and will conduce
most to the growth and permanence of the
church, which unites the itinerant feature
with a pastorate whose term is not limited
by an absolute law, that makes no allowance
for any circumstance—a system, that can,
when needful, meet every demand either for
frequent change or for protracted labors in
the same field. Such was the system of the
early church, if the apostles left no succes
sors, and it “bishops” and “elders” are in
terchangable terms, as is held in our church.
4. That Southern Methodism has reached
a period in her history, when it will be wise
and Christian, and perhaps essential to her
self-preservation, to adopt a polity that shall
so differentiate her from an aggressive rival
communion identical in polity, that the two
churches may present features sufficiently
distinctive to allow both to occupy common
territory without collision and as co-workers
in the great Wesleyan family.
These are the propositions. If they are
not true, there is no need for discussing the
details of this or that plan. Therefore we
hope that all controversy respecting our
opinions will be confined to their investiga
tion —all side issues being avoided. If they
should prove true, no matter what may be
thought of related questions, then the mmd
should be directed to the best method of
reducing to practice the principles asserted;
and though we may not all agree as to what
precisely is best to be done, we shall have
taken one long stride in the right direction,
if we agree that something must be done.
We have no disposition to wrangle about
specific changes, until these points are set
tled. If jwiser men than ourself accept
these opinions, they may adjust them as
their combined wisdom suggests, and we
shall be satisfied.
Nor, indeed, are we disposed to argue
these questions further. We are not stating
opinions hastily formed. For years it has
been our habit to look down the future—to
study Methodism particularly, in the gene
rations ahead of us. It is our mental hab
it—our position has made it a duty. Nor
are these opinions now first uttered. We
have presented them for months past in
conversation with judicious friends, and have
not yet found one, who has heard all that
we can say, to dissent in any material point.
We have approached the subjeet reluctantly,
and after much solicitation from as pious,
loyal and faithful ministers and members as
Methodism has. Had we yielded to the
wishes of others, we should have written
these articles last fall. Delay has but con
firmed us in our opinions; and we have
spoken out now, because duty would allow
us to be no longer silent—whatever our ut
terances may cost us. That is no pleasant
task to perforin which places one in antago
nism to a large section of his brethren. But
we are compelled to run the risk; for, we
are certain, that from our stand-point we
see dangers ahead, that none can see, except
those who have access to the same sources of
information. We are willing that such per
sons give verdict on our opinions. If they
can establish their incorrectness, we will re
joice with the most joyful. We love the
Methodist church ardently—but we love the
kingdom of Christ more. We can obliterate
any feature in our church, if thereby, we
may advance that kingdom. On the con
trary, we would grave deeper, and then set
in granite every wrinkle iu her blessed old
face, if convinced that by so doing we can
SOUTHERN CHRISTIAN; ADVOCATE.)
help Christianity better to accomplish its
grand mission. It is our devotion to this
mission that has prompted what we have
written. Love for the cause of Christ has
constrained us. We have no selfish ends to
serve, no cherished plans to work out. We
contend for no personal, for no party tri
umph. If we could carry all the measures we
think wisest to-morrow, by a coup-de-main,
we would not do it. We want the church
and ministry to study the subject presented,
and to think and to act for themselves. In
this view, we are disposed to let our opinions
take care of themselves —die of neglect, if
they are unworthy of life; make their own
way in the world, if they deserve to live.
Only let us be secure from misconception
and misrepresentation, and we shall not dis
turb the peace of the church, by urging a
policy we may individually prefer, if it does
not spontaneously commend itself to think
ing and unprejudiced minds, who thorough
ly understand us, and know the grounds upon
which our opinions are based. To the hands
of such men, we now commit the subject.
We believe that Time, which proves all
t nngs, will vindicate, even if our brethren
condemn, us.
CHEERING WORDS.
We quote below a few lines from the same
letter, referred to in the article on the Wes
leyan Female College. It cheers us to know
that we have the sympathy and aid of faith
ful Christian sisters. We never make up
an issue of the paper, but we think of them,
and try to find something good for them and
their children.
If such as the excellent lady from whom
we quote will take up the interests of the
Advocate, and frequently remind the preach
ers of the longing the church has for such
a vehicle of thought and intelligence, this
paper will soon be found all over the land.
“You will be surprised to receive these lines
from one of your old pupils, of whom you have
long ago lost sight. In all this time, whenever
the mails permitted, however, I have been hear
ing from you every week, and have watched with
no common interest your noble efforts to sustain
the Advocate, aud to make it what it should be»
an able organ of Methodism. I had not seen a
copy since ear.y last year, and often asked my
husband the question, What will become of the
Advocate ? Os course he could not give me a
satisfactory answer, and I began to fear that
the terrible storm through which we have pass
ed had swept it away—when lo! here it comes,
with its same cheerful tone and brave spirit.—
Thanks to your energy, it still lives in spite of
the coldness and neglect of friends, and the un
toward circumstances of blighting, desolating
hope.
“It is a peculiar treasure to me, for it comes
from the hands of one who is connected with
most pleasant memories of College days—from
the city where those days were spent, and from
my native State ; and having been from its first
issue a regular visitor at my father’s house, it is
associated with the earliest recollections of
childhood. I felt that I must offer my congrat
ulations in the beginning of its new life, and
my best wishes for your success. I would like
to make a more substantial offering, but am now
unable to do so. I have never failed since I be
came ‘an itinerant,’ to speak a favorable word
for our church papers on all appropriate occa
sions, and I promise you to redouble my efforts
in behalf of the dear old Advocate.”
A COMPROMISE PROPOSED.
The Nashville Advocate devotes a brief
article to changing the place of holding the
General Conference. It suggests that the
sitting of our General Conference ought to ex
ert a great moral and ecclesiastical influence,
not only upon the city in which it shall sit,
but upon the whole circumjacent region for
hundreds of miles. And this is especially
the case at the present time. It adds:
“The tendency of our church is most
largely, decidedly, and unequivocally north
ward.
“The very doctrines of our holy and di
vinely taught religion impel us to push the
principles of an unsecularized, unambitious
and non-political church and Christianity
farther and farther north. This is our mis
sion and our duty. And by the blessing of
Almighty God, and the encouragements of
Christian enterprise, we intend to fulfil
them !
“How soon we will hold a General Con
ference in New York or Philadelphia, doth
not yet appear; but it is certain that within
the last three months very large and unmis
takable indications have become manifest,
beyond the Ohio, inviting our ministry, our
influence, and our principles, in that direc
tion.
“These are considerations which, it is be
lieved, demand large and prompt attention.
There are things existing now which were
not seen two months ago.”
On the whole, therefore, it is disposed,
we infer, to the change to Louisville. Let us
propose a compromise. Go to New Orleans
now; there adopt the suggestions we make
in our leading article this week, and next
year let us hold another Conference for the
purpose there proposed, in Louisville.
NOTICE THE CROS^MARK.
A cross mark (thus indicates that the
subscription is nearly expired —and a remit
tance will be necessary, if the paper is de
sired longer.
PACTS versus THEORY.
IS SOUTHERN METHODISM A SUCCESS OR
* A FAILURE?
Says the Editor of the So. Ch. Advocate ,
in the number for Jan. 19 th: “We have
not the figures at hand to settle the ques
tion, but we will venture to say, that if the
growth of our church be compared both
with that of other churches and the popu
lation in the older sections of our country,
it will be found that we have not grown, but
rather fallen back.”
Now for some facts. I have referred to
such statistics as are within reach to see how
the above assertion is sustained by them.
And so far as the older sections of our
country in the bounds of the M. E. Church,
South, is concerned, we have these results :
Virginia Conference, white membership,
in 1850,31,355; in 1800, 40,634. Increase
in 10 years, 9,279, or 29 per cent.
Norih Carolina Conference, in 1850, 25,-
657; in 1860, 28,566. Increase in 10
years, 2,909, or 11 per cent.
*North Carolina Conference, in 1849,21,-
258; in 1860, 28,566. Increase in 11 years,
7,308, or 34 per cent.
South Carolina Conference, in 1850, 31,-
113; in 1860, 38,524. Increase in 10
years, 7,411, or 24 per cent.
Georgia Conference, in 1850, 44,041; in
1860,56,749. Increase in 10 years, 12,708,
or 28 per cent.
[*The facts above, showing the increase
in the North Carolina Conference from 1849
to 1860, are given for the purpose of swell
ing the increase from 11 per cent, in 10
years to 34 per cent, iu 11 years —a gain of
23 per cent, in one year, 1849. Os course,
the writer did. not observe that in this year
(1849) the members transferred from the
South Caroliua Conference were first re
ported in the North Carolina Conference.
Hence the large increase for that year.
These lines must be thrown out altogether
in getting the average increase for ten
years.— Editor.]
Facts are stubborn things and frequently
upset very well wrought theories.
Has the increase of our church in these
old, ante revolutionary States been less than
the increase of the white population in those
States ? I have not the census returns of
1860 before me, but I “venture to say”
that it has not been. Whoever can dis
prove it let him do so.
Has our church, in the older sections of
our country, compared with other churches,
not grown but fallen back ? With such
figures before us, more than mere opinion
or assertion is required to satisfy me. We
are considering matters of vital importance
to our church; let us deal with facts.
Now I have brought these figures down
no lower than 1860, because the general
statistics since that year are not published,
and even if they were, there have been so
many losses to our and every other South
ern church, from deaths in battle, in hospi
tal?, and from backslidings in the army and
at home during a four years’ war, that later
comparison would not be either fair or satis
factory. The facts used are connected with
our church in the 10 years immediately pre
ceding the war, and can not be objected to.
Says the editor of the So. Ch. Advocate,
in the same number, “ Our system is grand
for founding churches, but fails where we
come into competition with churches where
the pastoral function is exercised. Our
towns and cities are growing faster than our
churches there. Here are some more sta
tistics. Let us see how they sustain these
assertions. I present the four largest and
oldest towns in Georgia for consideration.
In these towns, Methodism, itinerant Metho
dism, is “brought into competition with
churches where the pastoral function [by
which the settled, permanent pastorate is
meant,] is exercised.”
In 12 years our church increased in white
membership, in Augusta, from 576, in 1854,
to 856, in 1865, or 48 per cent.
In Macon, from 516, in 1854, to 797
in 1865, or 54 per cent.
In Columbus, from 610, in 1854, to 954
in 1865, or 56 per cent.
In Savannah our church decreased in
white membership from 638, in 1854, to
404 in 1865, or 57 per cent.
Does it appear that in Georgia our towns
and cities are growing faster than our
churches there ? The facts are presented
above that in three of the four largest and
oldest towns, our increase, notwithstanding
the embarrassments incident to the war,
averages 53 per cent., and this whilst sur
rounded by other churches in which “the
pastoral function is exercised,” and compe
tition is spirited. Now I put it to candor,
has Methodism in these cities proven to be
“ grand to found churches,” but failed to
build them up ? Savannah is a sad excep
tion to the prosperity of our church in the
other cities of Georgia. But it is easily ac
counted for by those conversant with the
facts. The Savannah Methodists have not
founded new churches greatly needed there,
as the Methodists of Augusta, Macon and
Columbus have done. Had they thus ex
tended the influence of our church, about
the same increase would have occurred there
as in the other cities. There is now only one
excellent church there of 400 whito mem
bers, whereas there should be three or four
with 1,000 or 1,500. But they are arous
ing themselves, we hear; have sold old
Wesley Chapel, intend to build anew church
in an eligible position, and if “ Methodism ”
survives the blows of friends and foes, a dif
ferent result will be seen there at the end
of the next 10 years.
Says the editor of the So. Ch. Advocate,
Jan. 26th, “ We need the powerful stimulus
of success. Our present system [itineracy,
compelling change of the pastoral relation
every two years,] fails to secure it.”
I appeal for facts to sustain mere assertion.
I have before me the total of white mem
bership in the Methodist Episcopal Church,
South, in 1850 and that of 1859 (none
having been published since), and what do
the facts connected with our church opera
tions for those nine years show? Let us
see. *
Total white membership in 1850, 375,-
520.
Total white membership in 1859, 516,-
778. Increase in 9 years, 141,258, or 37
per cent!
[The editor can supply here the figures
for 1860—having before him the General
Minutes for that year. The number of
whites reported then was 537,136, an in
crease in ten years of 161,616, or 43 per
cent.]
If we haven’t “ the powerful stimulus of
success ” in these facts, how can we get it ?
If “ our present system ” of an itinerant
ministry, changing annually and bi-ennially,
fails to secure it, then figures are unreliable
and facts signify nothing !
But this is not all. Last year there were
large accessions to Methodism in Georgia,
in Tennessee, and elsewhere, and the cheer
ing tidings borne upon the wintry winds
are that, in Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri,
North Carolina, and Virginia, “ the Lord is
adding to the church daily.”
Let us accept such results with grateful
hearts, and whilst a powerful adversary is
arrayed against us, not risk divisions and
schisms, and the carrying over to that very
adversary of hundreds or thousands of our
ministry, and hundreds of thousands of our
laity, by forsaking our ancient landmarks.
Madison, Feb. 5. 11. J. ADAMS.
We have a few remarks to make respect
ing the above communication.
1. We prefer our own definition (given
January 26) of the exercise of the pastoral
function to the writer’s. Where this func
tion can bc3t be exercised by a change of
pastors, let them be changed—where best
otherwise, either in circuits or in stations,
let them remain. Mr. Wesley appointed
several of his preachers to the same work
for many consecutive years, as may be
learned from Smith’s History of Metho
dism.
2. We had access to the same statistics
(and more) that are here used. But no
calculation of this sort will prove or dis
prove the proposition that, “ if the growth of
our church be compared with that of other
churches and of the it will be
found -that we have not grown, but rather
fallen back.” Three elements arc suggested
for the calculation. Here only one is used,
and it proves nothing, except that there has
been a positive increase in the number of
members in twelve years. Who doubts
this ? But what are such figures worth to
show whether we are relatively stronger or
weaker, without those which may show,
also, whether we are overtaking or falling
behind*tlie population ? Two simple illus
trations will exhibit their unreliability.
Suppose a population of 10,000, with
1,000 Methodists. Iu ten years let those
Methodists diminish to 800, a loss of 20
per cent. Suppose, however, the population
to have diminished to 6,000. Methodism
then would be relatively stronger with 800
members than she was before with 1,000.
Now, one in 7} of the population is with
her. Before, it was one in ten —an absolute
decrease of 20 per cent,, a relative increase
of 33 per cent.
Take another case. Methodism has, say,
1,000 members in a population of 10,000.
Let her in ten years add 100 per cent, to
her members —more than the above figures
make out in any case. But suppose the
population to have grown to 40,000. Pre
viously there was one Methodist in every
10 persons —now there is one in every 20
persons, an absolute increase of 100 per
cent., but relative to population a similar
decrease. It is as though the population
had remained at 10,000, and the church
had dwindled down to 500 members. Could
Methodism be said to have held its own
where, while ten years ago only 9,000 of
the population were not Methodists, now
38,000 of them are not Methodists?
The other two elements of the calcula
tion must, therefore, be supplied before we
can admit ourself confuted. We may add,
that had these elements been within reach,
we would not have trusted to mere conjec
ture. We should have brought the matter
to the test of figures.
3. The figures given, showing the abso
lute increase of Methodism, are not en
couraging. After striking out the “34 per
cent.’’ demanded by the correction made in
the body of the letter, the figures show that
in the five “ old Conferences,” Virginia,
North and South Carolina, and Georgia, the
average absolute growth of our church was
23 per cent, in ten years, or 2 3-10 per
cent, in one year. That is, every year there
was a net gain of something over two mem
bers to every hundred in our membership
in these old Conferences—in none of them
as many as three to the hundred. Did we
keep pace with population ? Is this the rate
of growth of the original aggressive Metho
dism ? This gain, too, was below the aver-