Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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-