Newspaper Page Text
THREE DOLLARS PER ANNUM.
VOL. XXXIY. NO. 17.
©ripal lloeirg.
Tlie Lonely Fireside.
She sat alone by the winter’s hearth
Where the fire burned dim and low,
For the cheerful blaze had slowly sunk,
Though the embers were still aglow—
And as fitful flames from the ruddy coals
Gleamed o’er the darkening floor,
Fancies and phantoms as fitfully came,
From a dim and distant shore.
They came and went, in the changing light,
Like shadows at close of day,
Luring her back to the misty Past
From which she was drifting away ;
And she yearningly followed in tender thought
Those viewless forms of air,
That seemed with pitying love to woo
From silence and solitude there.
No slumbering infant’s rosy cheek,
Jts soft, warm pillow pressed ;
No murmuring, dove-like voices told
Os childhood’s sweet unrest; ,
No tenderer tones—less soft, but dear, flfl!
Fell on her listening heart,
Ah ! she Sad seen in life’s drrk hour,
These blessings all depart
The earth seemed cold am( still k
A 'r,!.g
‘he
.!' mil :
ii .• .
ti ■ ■
> ■■. 1 si
i '.'j VVyJfwA y.'ifr, '(fyfflif. .3 $! \ -JCJ j
£m\- ’vie j'/Yf-
. Ksj ■
JH
M I
1 jmM
kSg
JKt
JK
JB
< fl|
f■•! f -'yT - yjl . '* '**
'V r<r'^7ii ‘‘.V" *
T f f
CoMbntions.
Heresies and Dissensions*. i
Writing of Creeds, my mind reverted to am
utterance from one in authority bearingtjmqiJ
the point alrout which I was thinking./Saicf
the authority referred to, “I stand
ards of doctrine except our Articles of Reli
gion.” We have a creed then, and some
think it no cause of shame that the creed of
Methodism is simply and clearly defined.
Many who heard that utterance, fear that
it may be construed into a large, to some of
us an alarming, license, by men of unstable
minds among us. There are points of doc
trine about which the twenty-five Articles of
Religion are silent, which, for all that, are
well defined parts of our theology. I sup
pose the authority already quoted would not
concede to a minister of the Methodist
Church the right to assault these points of
doctrine in his pulpit ministrations. If all
men grounded themselves itr the truth before
taking upon them ordination'vows, or if none
were unstable as water, there would be little
danger of such an assault upon doctrine, af
ter the candidates for orders had passed
through our theological course ; but such is
not the case.
“Conversions” sometimes occurs in the
case of old men —unliappy ones in their re
sult. In consequence of such “conversions”
a minister might be tempted to use the
authority and influence of a Methodist to
“convert” others to his mode of thinking,
and his faith. Shall he be permitted to do
so? “Yes,” says one, “unless the Articles
of Religion condemn his views.” “No,” say
many of us, “he must not do so, if he has
adopted views opposed to the accepted the
ology of our Church.” Which decision is
right ?
If a minister be permitted to pursue the
course indicated iu the first answer, look at
two inevitable results. One is the unset
tling of the minds of many of our people
upon the points at issue, and as a conse
quence rendering them less stable upon all
points. The other is the awakening of a
spirit of controversy and bitterness among
brethren. These results have always fol
lowed such a course. Are they not deeply
injurious to the church and to God’s cause ?
Sober, unprejudiced lookers-on answer,
“Yes.” Shall wo permit it ? Never. The
peace aud welfare of our common Zion de
mand that such an agitator be arrested iu
his work of mischief.
Is it not also an offence against the church
in the direction of ordination vows ? The
man has promised to “banish and drive
away all erroneous and strange doctrines
contrary to God’s word. ” The preacher of
strange doctrine would reply “it is not erro
neous, nor contrary to God’s word ; I hold
it as truth proven by God’s word.” 13 this
what the ordination vow implied ? Does it
leave each man free to hold and disseminate
under its authority, any strange doctrine he
may embrace ? No man will affirm that it
does. This would sweep away every barrier to
error, and let in a flood, or expose us to such
a possibility. “Erroneous and str..nge doc
trines, contrary to God’s word, ” in the or
dination vow, means doctrines contrary to
our standards of doctrine, and the received
views of the Methodist Church. If one’s views
are not in consonance with ours, as Metho
dists, he could not take that vow. If his
views became different, his authority under
that vow should be relinquished before he
violates it.
I said that vow pledges,us to drive away
doctrines contrary to our standards and the
received views of our church. Is it not a
mistake that we have no standards of doc
trine but our Articles of Religion ? We
have high authority for the assertion that
we have other standards. Bishop M’Tyeire
in his Manual of Discipline, under the class
of “Heresies aud Dissensions” says, “This
class may come under two heads : (a) Hold
ing and disseminating, publicly or privately,
doctrines which are contrary to our Articles
of Religion and our present existing and estab
lished standards of doctrine.” The italics are
mine. What are these “present existing and
established standards of doctrines ?” Not the
Articles of Religion, of course. What else
but the Text Books in our course of study
prescribed for candidates for orders iu our
ehureh ? .1 cannot conceive how one can un
derstand this language other than in this
sense. If I misinterpret it, I shall be glad
to know wliat is meant. If Ido not misin
terpret it, the minister who disseminates
publicly or privately, doctrines contrary to
these Text Books, is guilty of heresy.
>«<dhcrti <Cl>gi»f taw
The second head is, “sowing dissensions
in any of our societies by inveighing against
either our doctrines or discipline.” The
minister who openly and defiantly preaches
doctrines contrary to Wesley, Watson, etc.,
certainly exposes himself to censure under
this rule.
True, this rule is not designed “to sup
press free inquiry ;” only to guard against
“mischievous false brethren who might be
disposed to avail themselves of their place
in the bosom of the church to sow dissen
sions, by inveighing against our doctrines or
discipline in the sense of unchristian railing
or violence.” To be guilty of offence under
this explanation of law, it seems to many of
us that one has only to teach, publicly or
privately, “novel sentiments,”' or “vain
jangling,” contrary to God’s word as inter
preted by our “standards;” meaning by “our
standards,” our Articles of Religion and our
JjtfjioitJf- In fewer words, wd regard any
to set ufi'4o(:trines contrary to those
|H in these standards, us s violation of
If one entertains different opiu
these standards, lie should not use
us a minister iu
give weight to his
a right,
arrM him his
his
he
*
** w *
*'■ ■„-■ -Y ■ f 1 lj- m i i’i Hi
is a
hr
A i y
ti r o w n i g
afford su
well. The good old
would not admit of
all his sons to college, so ho
conscientiously concluded to send
Bine. What effect this conclusion had upon
'all the boys in shaping their future course I
know not; but it was the means of throwing
one upon his own resources, and causing
him to leave liis-paternal home early in life.
Hi* thirst ior knowledge must be satiated.
Education he must and would have.
He resolutely resolved to leave home and
fight his own way through. Concealing his
object from all, he obtained permission to
leave home, to go to H. C. to learn a trade;
but a brighter future, a holier calling was
before him.
, He left the home of ia.s youthful days to
tyy hiaipetnunin the world. The restraints
of homeland a undish desire to be free, did
not prompt him to take this stqp, bqt, an
insatiable desire to be somebody. «
A small carpet bag is his only companion.
Like old Jacob, he is journeying ho hardly
knows whither; but, trusting in Jacob’s God,
he travels on, till night-fall finds him at a
fanner’s door, claiming hospitality. He is
admitted. He forms the acquaintance of a
young man who inquires into his history,
.to whom the youth gives his reasons for
leaving home so early in life. How singu
lar 1 a stranger is in possession of facts he had
concealed from his most intimate friends.
The hand of his Heavenly Father was in all
this. He had providentially met with a
stranger, whose sympathetic heart beat in
unison with his.
The stranger had been a student at Ruth
erford Seminary, and, knowing the charac
ter of its noble President, he advised the
poor boy to go at once and make application
for admittance. The youth thanking tho
stranger for this bit of information, deter
mined to act accordingly. Devoutly thank
ing God for his protection through the day
and invoking the same through the night,
tlie poor adventurer fell asleep, to dream of
brighter days, when he should be able to
take his place in the ranks with the good
and wise.
Next day a solitary youth might have
been seen, carpet bag in hand, wending his
way along the road in the direction of the
Seminary. His heart throbs with alternate
hopes and fears. “What kind of a recep
tion shall I receive?” “Who am I? a poor
boy, a stranger in a strange land, poorly
clad with only a lew cents in my pocket.”
The poor youth is almost in despair. “But
he is a good man, generous and kind. I'll
go and tell him I have no money; but if he
will admit me, I will be able, with the bles
sing of God, to remunerate him in the
future.”
He comes to a store by the road side. His
old shoes are giving way. They are dis
placed by the purchase of anew pair. This
relieved his purse of its contents. “His
condition was not very enviable,” I hear the
reader say. No; the poor boy was of the
same opinion, but he had made np his mind
to meet it. As the sun was fast sinking be
hind the western hills, the Seminary looms
up before him. •
A number of young men and boys, rep
resenting every grade in society, from the
well-dressed dandy down to the homespun
clad orphan, are seated around the quaint
old Seminary, some on chairs, some on logs
and stumps, poring over their studies.
The new comer is conducted into the
President’s room, and left to tell his own
tale. The unassuming appearance and open
countenance of that good man encourages
him to speak.
“Sir, I want to enter your school. I am
poor, but I want an education. I have no
means but I hear you are very indulgent.
Will you take me?” and the poor boy, with
palpitating heart, waited for an answer.
“You are welcome, my boy; ice turn away
none for want of means.” Noble answer!
The applicant was satisfied with this rejoin
der to his artless speech.
Time rolls on. The session closes, and
the youth returns home, and soon after en
tered the army to do battle for his country.
The war ends and the young soldier re
turns home. His fond hopes, once bright,
though bedimmed with the smoke of battle,
are not destroyed. His duty to his country
done, he still thirsts for knowledge, but the
war has left him poorer than ever.
Once more he knocks at the door of the
old Seminary as a beneficiary, and is admit
ted. His old benefactor gives the young
soldier a warm reception. The poor boy
feels keenly the loss of four years in the
army. He is a man now. His mind is not
so fresh and vigorous as it once was, but he
struggles on. That poor boy pens these
lines. lam pleased to learn through the S.
G. A<7cocafc.that"my much venerated bene
factor, the President of Rutherford Semi
nary, N. C., is still at his post, prosecuting
his cherished enterprise. The doors of the
old time honored Institution are still open
to the poor orphan. The President, with
a large family dependent upon him for sup
port, appeals for help.
Since the war, a large'.per cent of the
students are beneficiaries. This I know to
be a fact.
That philanthropist and Christian has
sacrificed wealth, ease, comfort, not only
his own, but of his family, to keep the doors
open to the indigent orphan.
One lady in S. C., has sent in her mite.
Are there not many ladies in North and
South Carolina that will follow her exam
ple? The President don’t expect much sym
pathy from his own sex, much less help.
But he doe.; expect it from the ladies.
Labor on, my dear brother. God will
open the hearts of Southern ladies. They
cannot listen to the orphan’s wail and your
earnest appeals for aid, and refuse help.
With feelings of profound gratitude to
my much loved benefactor, I now make this
proposition to my clerical brethren of the
S. (t. Conference, who have been benefieia
rieAt Rutherford Seminary, N. C.
MB members of the S. C. Confereucc, we
Hft not forget ourown institutions; There
■e, I propose that we give the 10th of our
Brass income, and divideit between Wofford
|bollege aud Rutherford Seminary. I trust
*my brethren of the N. C. Conference, who
have been beneficiaries, will take the hint.
Beneficiary.
“Evil Communications Corrupt
Good Manners.”
Evil is distinguished into natural and
moral. Natural evil is this which affects in
any way the perfection of natural beings; as
blindness —disease. Applied to.choice, act
ing contrary to the moral or revealed will of
God, evil is termed wickedness or sin. The
declaration contains a truism that is co-ex
istent with the fall of man. One prominent
inherent principle in man is his desire or
love of society. This is seen in children in
early life, who seek the company of each
other. “It is not good for man to be alone.”
Solitude is not only repulsive, but revolting
to human nature. The design is to unite
mankind into one common brotherhood;
and to link him to his Creator. Deprive njan
of this principle, and he would be a fugitive
in the earth. The issue is iu regard to the
selection of society. Our happiness for time
and our felicity and eternal destiny greatly
depend upon the choice of association.
Absolute separation from the world is im
practical, and hence, not expected. The cir
cumstances under which man is placed for
bid it. “For then must ye needs go out of
the world.” Said the pious Psalmist, “lam
a companion of all them that fear thee, and
of them that keep thy precepts.” “Depart
from me, ye evil doers; for I will koep the
commands of my God.”
One’s reputation is judged or measured by
the reputation of those with whom ho asso
ciates. The standard of his piety is hardly
ever higher than that of his companions. He
that walketh with wise men shall be wise;
hat the companion of fools shall be destroyed.
Walking, with a man implies love and attach
ment. Show me his company, aud I’ll tell
you the man. “He that walks with the lame,
soon learns to limp.” Whosoever follows
the multitude to do evil, shall be destroyed
with the multitude. -.w-:
There is so much involved iu the princi
ple, that Christianity demands a separation.
The Scripture positively forbids walking
with the ungodly, standing iu the way of
sinners, or sitting in the seat of the scornful.
The wisest of all men says, and that man in
spired, “If sinners entice thee consent thou
not.” From time immemorial, sinners have
formed confederations to persuade, allure
and tempt the pious to participate in their
vices and crimes. Communication with the
wicked is so perilous that the Lord says,
“Enter not into the path of the wicked and
go not into the way of evil men. Avoid it,
pass not by it, turn from it and pass away.”
It is not in man to enter into their ways
without imbibing their principles and soon
doing the same deeds. No man can go into
bad company and come out the same man —
he is tainted, worse than when he went in.
“Evil communications corrupt good man
ners”—in regard to matrimonial alliances.
The church should keep separate from the
world in all respeete. Christians should not
intermarry with sinners. The Israelites were
strictly forbidden to intermarry with any
nation iq Canaan—the Hittites, Amorites,
etc., for the reason they would soon turn
from the true God, and worship idols. The
same principle is taught in the New Testa
ment : Be ye not unequally yoked together
with unbelievers. What fellowship hath
righteousness with unrighteousness? and
what communion that light with darkness ?
and what concord hath Christ with Belial ?
or what part hath a believer with an infidel ?”
The Apostle declares that a woman has the
liberty to marry whom she pleases, after
the decease of her husband, only in the Lord.
Dr. Clarke says, “Bewareof families.”
“Evil communications corrupt good man
ners,” is true in reference to nations. The
Persian Empire was founded by Cyrus; the
people were true, industrious, sober, and
happy at first, but so soon as the Medes
were united to them, they became corrupt,
superstitious and idolatrous. Nearly all
apostacies, in the church of Christ, and all
declension in religion, may be ascribed to
evil communications. The company of the
profane should be spurned; the society of
the infidel, the inebriate, ought to be avoid
ed. The company of the good should be
sought by all. Give me pious association,
or give me none. “Evil communications
corrupt good manners. ” W. Lane.
Trinity, Ga.
On tlie Lord’* Side.
No man can be on both of the line
at the same moment. “He that is not for
Me is against Me.” Because a man takes
his seat at the communion table a half dozen
times in a year, it is no proof that he is on
the Lord’s side. For through all the rest of
the year he may be living on the side of
worldliness and self-indulgence. “One swal
low does not make a summer. ” The church
member who is quick to accept every invi
tation to evening socialities, and yet is al
most never seen at a prayer-meeting, can
not certainly be on the Lord’s side. The
church-member who lives in luxury at the
expense of Christ’s treasury, certainly is
not on the Lord’s side. The professed
Christian who, in full view of the fact that
the drinking usages are filling hell with vic
tims, still offers the intoxicating cup to his
neighbors, is most assuredly not on the
Lord’s side. For we cannot see how a man
can possibly act so as to please God and to
please the devil at the same time. When a
person is glib in the store or the shop in
recommending his goods for sale, and yet
PUBLISHED BY J. W. BURKE & CO., FOR THE M. E. CHURCH, SOUTH.
MACON, GA., WEDNESDAY, APRIL 26, 1871.
never opens his lips to recommend Christ,
how can such an one claim to be on the
Lord’s side? When a church-member abuses
the confidence placed in him to sell damaged
wares to his customers, or when he lives on
the money which honestly belongs to his
creditors —how can he without a blush, pre
tend to be on the Lord’s side?
We might multiply sndh close questions;
but the real and final test which covers the
whole is this one—Am I living in daily obe
dience to God? Then am lon God’s side.
Am I trying humbly and faithfully to keep
Christ's commandments? Then am I one
of His Disciples. Not only in the one act
at the sacramental board, but in every act
of our lives the Divine Master seems to be
saying to ns. “Do this in remembrance of
Me.” We fear that if Christ were to come
to all onr commnnien services this month,
and by His reproachful look were to drive
out all the Peters and Judases who have
either denied him or betrayed him, there
might be a sad array of empty pews! Scores
would be “going out into the garden to
weep bitterly.”— Rev. T. L. Cuyler, in Evan-
From the Sunday Magazine.
Aged Saint Entering Heaven.
At length the door is opened, and free from pain
and sin,
With joy and gladness on his head, the pilgrim en
ters in;
The Master bids him welcome, and on the Father’s
breast,
By loving arms enfolded, the weary is at rest.
The pilgrim staff is left behind —behind the
the shield;
The armor, dimmed and dented, on many a hard
fought field;
His now the shining palace, the garden of delignt.
The psalm, the robe, the diadem, the glory ever
bright.
The blessed angels round him, ’mid heaven’s hal
lowed calm,
With harp and voice are lifting up the triumph of
their psalm:
“All glory to the Holy One, the infinite I Am,
Whose grace redeems the fallen ! Salvation to the
Lamb 1”
“Another son of Adam’s race, through Jesus’ lov
ing might,
Hath crossed the waste, hath reached the goal,
hath vanquished in the fight;
Hail, brother, hail! we welcome thee! join in our
sweet accord;
Lift up the burden of our song—Salvation to the
Lord!”
Aud now from out the glory, the living cloud of
light.
The old familiar faces come beaming on his sight;
The early lost, the ever loved, the friends of loDg
ag°.
Companions of his conflicts and pilgrimage below
They parted here iu weakness, and suffering, and
gloom;
They meet amid the freshness of heaven’s immor
tal bloom;
Henceforth, in ever-during bliss to wander, hand
in hand,
Beside the living waters of the still and sinless land.
Oh, who can tell the rapture of those to whom ’tis
given
Thus to renew the bonds of earth amid the sliss of
heaven ?
Thrice blessed be his Holy Name, who, for our fall
en race.
Hath purchased by his bitter pains such plentitude
of grace.
From the Nashville Christian Advocate.
Was Wesley a Knave and a Fool 1
We have entertained the hope that since
High-churchmen have’ inserted John Wes
ley’s name in tlieir calender of saints, they
would cease making him out a knave or a
fool. But some of their prelates persist in
making him both the one and the other—
whereas we maintain that he was neither.
They are citing, for the thousandth time, a
letter written by Mr. Wesley to Bishop As
bury, in proof that Mr. Wesley did not in
tend to organize a Church in America, or to
invest Coke with episcopal powers, or to
sanction any of their ordinations. That is
to say, they are charging Wesley with lying
and fraud, and at the same time with weak
ness and folly which one would predicate of
none but an idiot. Now, we affirm once
more that Mr. Wesley did set apart, by the
imposition of hands, Dr. Coke, for the ex
press purpose of organizing an Episcopal
Church in America, for which he abridged
the Liturgy of the Church of England, in
cluding the three ordination services, aud the
Articles of Religion, the second edition of
which, including “The General Minutes of
the Conferences of the Methodist Episcopal
Church iu America, forming the Constitu
tion of said Church,” is now before us. This
Prayer-book was printed on Mr. Wesley’s
press, and is substantially the same as that
which has been recently reprinted at our
Publishing House by order of the General
Conference. Jftut as Mr. Wesley was much
opposed to all high sounding titles, and as
those of “Bishop” and “Priest,” in England,
were suggestive of lordliness and state, Mr.
Wesley substituted for them ‘ ‘Superinten
dent” and “Elder” in the Offices for the or
dination of those ministers. Every scholar
knows that these terms are the precise Eng
lish equivalents of the Greek episcopos . and
presbuleros —but to Mr. Wesley they did not
sound so big. But that he intended that
Coke and Asbury, and those whom they or
dained, should be invested with episcopal,
presbyterial, and diaconal powers, is as plain
as daylight; for he abridged the threefold
ordinal for them. His brother Charles, who
inconsistently held some High-church no
tions, complained, to use his own language,
“that my brother should have assumed the
episcopal character, ordained elders, conse
crated a bishop, sent him over to ordain our
lay preachers in America.” So great was
his dread of separation from the National
Establishment, that he wrote to his brother
John, Aug. 14, 1785, “But when once you
began ordaining in America, I knew-, and
you knew, that your preachers here would
never rest till you ordained them. You told
me they would separate by and by. The
Doctor [Coke] tells us the same. His Metho
dist Episcopal Church in Baltimore was in
tended to beget a Methodist Episcopal
Church here.” This intention may be doubt
ed; but we beg leave to suggest that it might
have been well had such been the result.
John Wesley’s reply to his brother ought to
make the cheeks of certain parties blush
with shame. His biographer, the Rev.
Henry Moore, one of Mr. Wesley’s preach
ers, an intimate friend, and Trustee of his
manuscripts, says:
When pressed and goaded by his brother’s
severe remarks, concerning his thus acting
as a bishop, he answered, “I firmly believe
that I am a scriptural Episcopos as much as
any man in England, or in Europe; for the
uninterrupted succession I know to be a fable,
which no man ever did or can prove. But
this does in nowise interfere with my re
maining in the Church of England: from
which I have no more desire to separate
than I had fifty years ago.” He gave to
those Episcopoi whom he ordained the mod
est, but highly expressive, title of super
intendents, and desired that no other might
be used.
To set the matter in a full light we must
make another extract from Mr. Moore’s Life
of Wesley:
At the Conference held in Leeds in 1784,
he declared his intention of sending Dr.
Coke and some other preachers to America.
Mr. Kiehard Whatcoat and Mr. Thomas
Yasey offered themselves as missionaries for
that purpose, and were accepted. Before
they sailed Mr. Wesley abridged the Com
mon Prayer-book of the Church of Eng
land, and wrote to Dr. Coke, then in Lon
don, desiring him to meet him in Bristol, to
receive fuller powers, and to bring the Rev.
Mr. Creighton with him. The Doctor and
Mr. Creighton accordingly met him in Bris
tol; when, with their assistance, he orJained
Mr. Richard Whatcoat and Mr. Thomas
Vasey presbyters for America; and being
peculiarly attached to every rite of the
Church of England, he afterward ordained
Dr. Coke a superintendent, giving him let
ters of ordination under his hand and seal,
and at the same time the following letter,
to be printed and circulated in America:
“Bristol, Sept. 10, 1784.
“To Dr. Coke, Mr. Asbury, and our
Brethren in North America: By a very un
common train of providences, many of the
provinces of North America are totally dis
joined from their mother country, and erect
ed into independent States. The English
Government has no authority over them,
either civil or eoclesiastical, any more than
over the States of Holland. A civil author
ity is exercised over them partly by the
Congress, partly by the Provincial Assem
blies. Bnt no one either exercises or claims
any ecclesiastical authority at all. In this
pe—tliar situation some thousands of the
ink ibitants of these States desire my advice;
an..,- in compliance with their desire, 1 have
drawn up a little sketch.
“Lord King’s account of the primitive
Church convinced me, many years ago, that
bishops and presbyters are the same order,
and consequently have the same right to
ordain. * For I have been importuned, from
time to time, to exercise this right by ordain
ing part of the traveling preachers. But I
have still refused, not only for peace sake,
but because I was determined, as little
as possible, to violate the established order
of the national Church to which I be
longed.
“But the case is widely different between
England and North America. Here there
are bishops who have a legal jurisdiction.
In America there are none, neither any par
ish ministers. So that for some hundred
miles together, there is none either to bap
tize or to administer the Lord’s Supper.
Here, therefore, my scruples are at an end;
and I conceive myself at full liberty, as I
violate no order and invade no man’s right
by appointing and sending laborers into the
harvest. •
“I have accordingly appointed Dr. Coke
and Mr. Francis Asbury to be joint superin
tendents over our brethren in North Ameri
ca; as also Richard Whatcoat and Thomas
Va.v,y to act as elders among them, by bap
tizing and administering the Lord’s Supper.
And I have prepared a liturgy, little differ
ing from that of the Church of England, (I
think the best constituted national Cnurch
in the world,) which I advise all the travel
ing preachers to use on the Lord’s day in all
the congregations, reading the litany only
on Wednesdays and Fridays, aud praying
extempore on all other days. I also advise
the elders to administer the Supper of the
Lord on every Lord’s day.
“If any one will point out a more rational
and scriptural way of feeding and guiding
those poor sheep iu the wilderness, I will
gladly embrace it. At present I cannot see
any better method than that I have taken.
“It has, indeed, been proposed to desire
the English bishops to ordain part of our
preachers for America. But to this object:
1. I desired the Bishop of London to ordain
only one, but could not prevail. 2. If they
consented, we knew the slowness of their
proceedings; but tlie matter admits of no
delay. 3. If they would ordain them now,
they would likewise expect govern them.
And how grievously would this entangle us?
4. As our American brethren are now 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 made them free.
“John Wesley.”
Why the American brethren, who consid
ered themselves of age, chose to substitute
the title Bishop for the less technical appel
lation, “Superintendent,” is a matter of no
moment in this place. Their doing so elici
ted Mr. Wesley’s famous letter to Asbury,
which has been the occasion of so much
misrepresentation. In the light of the fore
going historical facts, a child can understand
its design. Here it is. It was written from
London, Sept. 20, 1-788, four years after he
had ordained Coke “Superintendent,” and
empowered him to ordain Asbury and others.
After alluding to Doctor Coke, Mr. Wesley
writes:
But in one point, my 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 college ! Nay, and call it after
your own names!f O beware! Do not seek
to be something ! Let me be nothing, and
“Christ bo all in all!”
One iustanco of this, of your greatness,
has giv .‘U me great concern. How can you,
how .Fye you, suffer yourself t,o bo called
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
bishop ! For my sake, for God’s sake, for
Christ’s sake, put a full end to this! Let the
Presbyterians do what they please, but let
the Methodists know their calling better.
Thus, my dear Frauky, 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.
Tour affectionate friend and brother,
i John Wesley.
He refers to the Presbyterians because
they call all their pastors “bishops.” Mr.
Moore pertinently says:
“Did he not, upon this occasion, a little
forget what he had written in his address to
the societies in America after their separa
tion from the' mother country? ‘They are
now at full liberty simply to follow the Scrip
tures and the primitive Church; and we
judge it best that they should stand fast in
the liberty wherewith God has so strangely
made them free.’ But the association in his
mind, between the assumed title and the
display connected with it in the later ages of
the Church, was too strong. He could not,
at that moment, separate the plain, labori
ous bishops of the American societies, where
there is no legal establishment, from the
dignified prelates of the mighty empire of
Great Britain. That our brethren who are
in that office are truly scriptural bishops,
I have no doiibt at all; nor do I wish that
the title should be relinquished, as it is
grown into use, and is known, by every per
son in the United States, to designate men
distinguished only by their simplicity and
abundant labors.”
We presume the title was changed because
it was more convenient to call a man “Bish
op” than “Superintendent” though the
words mean the same. It would perhaps
have been well that the Primitive Fathers
continued the scriptural application of the
title episcopos to the pastors of churches,
and not restricted it to presiding elders. But
we have realized no material inconvenience
in this restriction. We scarcely know of a
greater pdous fraud than is perpetrated by
those Anglican bishops and priests, who cite
Mr. Wesley’s ill-advised letter to Bishop As
bury, as a proof that he did not approve of
the organization of the Methodist Episco
pal Church in America—which was the
crowning act of John Wesley’s eventful life.
His objection to the titles, bishop, priest,
and college, and the like, only proves that
he was opposed to all appearance of pomp
and show. That his “dear Franky” was as
much opposed to it as his venerable friend,
his almost unparalleled life of labor, and
self-denial, and humility, abundantly shows.
We must just remark, that John Wesley
allowed men to preach, but not to adminis
ter to the sacraments, without previous or
dination b.y the laying on of hands. After
his death, the Conference affirmed that the
right to administer the sacraments follows as
a sequence from the call to preach, and that
the laying on of hands is not essential to
ordination, though it subsequently intro
duced this formality. The truth is, there is
no scriptural precept restricting the admin
istration of the sacraments to ministers of
the word, or requiring imposition of hands
for any thing, though there is scriptural pre
cedent for doing so for various purposes.
The Old Hymns. —Did you ever know any
person who was brought up on the good old
Zion hymns, whom they ever failed to move
to the foundations when heard? The feet
moving on unholy errands linger on their
way past the church door, as the melody
floats out upon the night air. That man—
who has wasted life, aud energy, and talent,
which might have blessed mankind, to reap
only the whirlwind -he is back again with
his little head upon his mother’s lap while
she sings that same hymn, which will never
grow old, about “the beautiful river.t’ His
eyes moisten as he thinks how pained she
would be, were she living, to know him
now. The hymn ceases, and the low bene
diction follows; and as the worshipers emerge
he recollects himself, aud with an impatient
“pshaw!” passes on. What! he moved at a
*A pious prelate (tlie late Kev. Dr. Horne, Bish
op of Norwich) remarks ou this transaction, “If
a presbyter can ordain a bishop, then the greater
is blessed of the less, aud the order of all things
is inverted.” No; not if Mr. Wesley’s position
be true, that they are the same order. The Bishop
should have overthrown this position (if he could)
to have established his own.
tCokesbury College. The name was formed
from the names of its founders—Coke and Asbury.
“conventicle hymn!” He,who for years has
never crossed the threshold of a church?
He, who believes neither in prayers nor
priest, Bible nor Sundays? He, who has
“ outgrown all that?” Ah! but he hasn’t.
He can’t outgrow it—it is there. It will
come, whether he desires it or no. Come,
in spite of all his efforts to laugh or reason
it away. Come, though he live in open de
rision and mockery of that religion whose
devine precepts he cannot efface from his
mind. Come, as it did to John Randolph,
who, after years of atheism, and worldliness,
and ambition, left on record that “ the only
men he ever knew well and approached
closely, whom he did not discover to be un
happy, were sincere believers of the Gospel,
who conformed their lives, as far as the na
ture of man can permit, to its precepts.”
Often,” he says, “the religious preachings
of his childhood were banished wholly by
business or pleasure; but after a while they
came more frequently, and staid longer,
until at last they were his first thoughts on
waking, and his last before going to sleep.
Said he, “I could not banish them if I
would.” —Fanny Fern.
From the WcsternJMethodist.
The Presiding Eldership, as Rela
ted to the Cabinet, or, Bishop’s
Council.
The Secretary had read up the Minutes.
The hour for adjourning the Conference was
come, and the last question asked: “Where
are the preachers stationed this year?”
The Bishop said—
“ Brethren, the answer in which you and
your families, and the churches are so much
concerned, is ready to be delivered. These
appointments are the result of patient and
conscientious labor. We have prayed over
them. We have diligently sought all avail
able light, and have weighed the qualifying
circumstances of men and of places. In the
exercise of a godly judgment we have en
deavored to adjust the right men to the right
places, and so to distribute the work and
the workmen, as to do the greatest good to
the greatest number. Before the Chureli,
I am responsible for these appointments,
and seek not to evade any part of the re
sponsibility that attaches to me or my office.
But, it jnstly increases your confidence that
I have been favored with the aid of wise
men and approved among you; your breth
ren and fellow-laborers, who have had the
best opportunities of being well informed
concerning everything that pertains to a
safe issue. Daily I have been in council
with the Presiding Elders. We have had
free and unreserved deliberation on every
appointment. I believe they have been
frank with me and with one another, and
have kept back nothing that was material
to the formation of a correct conclusion in
so grave a matter.”
Every Bishop ought to be able to say that,
if he does not; and every preacher, and
every member is entitled to the confidence
which it inspires. If a Presiding Elder
states the facts and his real judgment in the
case, and is overruled —why, he is clear.
But, if hindrance or hurt befall the Church
or one of its weakest servants, through his
reserve or misleading—then, the reflections
of that man, in a quiet heart-searching hour,
are not to be envied.
A Presiding Elder is a Diocesan, in many
respects. In the Protestant Episcopal
Church there is the Bishop of the Diocese
of Tennessee—of Arkansas—of Mississippi.
Quite a show they make on paper, and in
their robes. Bnt when you search the mat
ter out, you will find plenty of Methodist
Episcopal Presiding Elders in these States
whose districts, in membership and in
churches, as far ahead of those dioceses.
Yes, onr average Presiding Elder Diocesan
is at the head of larger spiritual forces, and
doing more against the world, the flesh, and
the devil.
Bnt, he lias the local attachments and in
terests of the Diocesan that sometimes have
to be overruled for the benefit of the work
at large. It is admirable to see him taking
special care of the district he hails from,
and of his preaeliers that were. The
places must bo well supplied and tlie preach
ers provided for. There is an esprit d’corps
about every district that indicates vital pro
cesses. There is a temptation among Pre
siding Elders to a little religious finesse and
strategy—which is well enough when resisted.
This point is brought out by an Ex-Presid
ing Elder, in the book quoted from in last
number—“ The Bisbop’s Council.” It is in
session, and the friendly contention has
begun:
“ ‘Perhaps, brethren,’ said the Bishop,
‘I had better settle one question before we
proceed any further. I refer to the owner
ship of the preachers. I hear you say, “my
preachers.” The preachers do not belong
to you. They did, iu some sense, until the
meeting of the Annual Conference; that is,
they were under your jurisdiction. But now
they are the property of the whole pastoral
work within your Conference territory, li
able to go to any charge where their services
are most needed; and what I have you here
for iu council is to tell me not only where)
they are needed, but where they are most]
needed; not only where they can be useful,,
but most useful; and as soon as I get thatj
information clearly from you, I shall putl
them down without asking any furthen
questions. Where you seem evidently uni
decided among yourselves, I shall ask yo*
to vote, that I may know what are the vieiH
of the majority; but even in that case I m:fl
sometimes feel it my duty to act as umpiifl
in protecting the minority from appareifl
wrong; for it is possible, in so small abodß
for four men to be more influenced by loefl
considerations, than one man who looks H
the interests of the whole work umnfluencM
by any local circumstances.’ ” ■
A Presiding Elder need not be a Fre»
mason, but no Freemason ought to excel
him in keeping a secret. The people bring!
to him their complaints of the shortcomings!
of the preacher. This may form the basis!
of a friendly admonition; he may quietly di-1
rect his attention to neglects and uninten-1
tional omissions, to which over-sensitivel
persons had attached undue consequence!
On the other hand, the young preache!
finds in him “guide, philosopher, andl
friend. ” To him he has a right to communi-J
cate freely of hindrances and*slights, if any!
there be, on the part of his people. Hel
brings up difficult cases for solution, and!
opens the penetralia of pastoral life. Whatj
trouble this confidence man can stir be-j
tween that pastor and his flock, by an in-1
discreet tongue! 1
A leaky cabinet is a calamity to any Con
ference. There is no surer way of putting a
body of Methodist preachers, and the whole
community of visitors, into an unhappy,
feverish mood, than for parts of the un
finished stationing work to get out. We
quote from “The Bishop’s Council:”
“The Presiding Elders now drew up
around a centre-table, and several of them
opened their portfolios, sharpened their
pencils and prepared for writing. ‘I have
no objection,’ said the Bishop, ‘to your
taking notes and making memoranda, pro
vided you will keep them from the eyes of
all observers outside of this Council. And
let me remind you that you are not to speak
of anything said or done here, except to
each other, until the appointments are read
out, unless by permission in some special
case. lam glad to know that most of our
preachers, having engaged in this holy
work from a sense of duty, are willing quiet
ly to repose their destiny for the coming
year in our hands; believing that we will do
the best we can both for them and the gen
eral interest of the great work in which we
are engaged; but we have a few restless
spirits among us, whose anxiety about their
appointments will increase as the Confer
ence advances, and who will be listening
and guessing, and trying to get some hint
beforehand as to their field of ministerial
labor. But you know, brethren, that we
shall be making changes until the close of
our last sitting. There will be re-admis
sions, locations, superannuations, and per
haps, some agencies to fill, which will re
quire us to take up men already down; aud
that will lead to sundry other changes. And
then a careful review of the whole matter,
at our final meeting, may suggest several
transpositions for the better, and it would
be wrong to annoy or mislead the preachers
beforehand by telling them anything about
our plan, which, at best, is only in a state
of progress toward a final settlement. ’ ”
As the scaffolding of a building is thrown
down when the house is finished, so ought
it to be with the consultations, out of which
has grown the plan of appointments. For
the most part they are still confidential.
One item cannot be understood unless others
are explained, and this may lead to unjust
speculations. We give a case that occurred
eleven years ago.
G was one of the best itinerants that
ever took the field, and the best circuits
were happy to get him. He was a cheerful
as well as successful preacher, and never
troubled himself about the appointments,
and rather enjoyed the surprise of the an
nouncement. In 1860 he was read out to
circuit. It suited him well. He went
into the parsonage and around the work,
and was happy. The pleasure of the Lord
prospered in his hands. About eight months
had past, and a maladroit Presiding Elder
remarked to him: “Glad to find you doing
so well here. This is not the work you were
first put down to. Your name stood oppo
site until the last night of tho Confer
ence, and then you were taken up and
moved to this circuit. ”
G— says he began to compare the two,
and the idea grew on him that he had lost
by that exchange. Then he surmised how
it should come about. Did he have ene
mies? Were they at work to supplant him?
In short, he was an unhappy man for the
remainder of the year.
Subjects come up in the Bishop’s Coun
cil that must be canvassed freely, and tlicro
must be a feeling of mutual confidence. In
the weighing and balancing of the claims of
persons and places, a nice point, and it may
be a delicate one, may settle the scale. A
hard feeling, not to say a feud, sprung up
once betweeq two good men, ou this wise,
and it was long in being reconciled:
The name of A. was proposed for a cer
tain station. Presiding Elder B. suggested
the unfitness of that appointment. The
station was prosperous, and a good preacher
and pastor was just going off. It was a cul
tivated community, and the students and
faculty of a Church College made a part of
the congregation. Brother A. was a good
man and useful, but not adapted to that
station; he had never overcome the defects
of his early education; was not studious;
could preach a few popular sermons, but
could not hold up at it; could not fill that
bill. Presiding Elder C. remarked that he
knew A.; had heard him preach; he was a
man of ability, and would suit himself to
the demands of the station; try him. B.
responded, and proposed another person for
the station. C. replied, and they waxed as
earnest as Paul and Barnabas over John
Mark’s case. It all passed off well and even
pleasantly in the end, as far as B. and C.
were concerned.
But there was present a kinsman of Doeg,
also a Presiding Elder, who took no part in
the discussion. He, as fate would have it,
roomed with A., aud in the strictest confi
dence told him all about it; how B. had said
he couldn’t preach beyond a few “sugar
sticks,” etc. A. couldn’t keep it; it was too
bad, and that from a man he had counted on
as his friend! Ho called B. to account, who
met it with candor, like a man of God who
had, in the discharge of his duty, done no
injustice and meant no unkindness.
The reader will be pleased to learn that
Doeg was not in the next Bishop’s Council.
It is not exactly fair to take the credit of
making all the good appointments, but the
bad ones—why, the Bishop made them.
Reticence is best. Take the example of
Probus. Many an itinerant is thankful for
having been brought up at the saddle of
that Gamaliel. A circuit, not in his district
but near his home, was to be filled, and a
man was named—one of Probus’s preach
er’s. He dissented; it was a hard work and
illiberal in providing for its ministers; he
thought the preacher named deserved bet
ter; he did not wish to give him up. That
inexorable combination of providential cir
cumstances began to appear, which even
Probus could not stem. He labored, like
Darius, till the going down of the sun to
deliver his Daniel, but in vain. Somebody
had to take the hard place, and it seemed
to be his destiny.
After Conference adjourned they met,
but Daniel was too full to speak, he was
hurt; and worse than all, his wife was in
tears. They were both sure that Probus
had procured this affliction for them. Did
he make haste to exonerate himself and cast
blame on somebody? Not at all. He cheered
them, told his own experience on harder
circuits, and bid them hope for the best.
Often he saw them during tlie year, and met
a cold if not reproachful reception on the
part of the discontented family. Probus
loved his friends, and might have cleared
up the matter by a word, but that word he
never spoke.
He had been trained in the old school of
itinerancy. He had cultivated a thorough
official integrity. Ho had a delicate and
high sense of honor, which has never been
better illustrated by any class of men than
by Presiding Eiders.
. -f
- Y 'l/' ;i
fH
-ays it is 7* ¥ Y Y’’*- '• ■’ -'; f- "‘j
■l'li.- ii.' H ‘s j Y'' •'i.Y '[l
mi: ' i
■ . M
rim-11’ Hi* f
’1 J.
is mine!”
Still Inter,
How I desire,
(•reuse, to ktioH
the ei title ol nil Itl
sl l uh Iti 11 the I rat in; n
tniil grace; to see my
‘oi if my I.mil wnuhl i:‘WjwßSßjP|
llv soul woulil st ret eli li'VnHBB
Fly fearless tlm iwti a
Nor feel the terr ns us she
Again, to his skillful nnd^H.
physician, Dr. William St ncs^HNHHH
hail been a bosom friend, ji-'jjjViS
approaching the moment w
ways considered of the greatest- H|H|
extinction, or continuance of
“Philosophy says -Extinction!
“Infidelity says- Extinction!
“Sense says—Extinction!
“Faith says—lmmortality! '
“Religion says—lmmortality!
“Christianity says—lmmortality!
“One thing is certain, something hasH
ways been; something continues to exi!
If the individual falls, life still continues r
tha race. Infidelity can’t gainsay this.”
E. H. MYERS, D D., EDITOR.
WHOLE NUMBER 1847.
Then, again, with assurance: “lam going
to see the grandest tiling in the universe,
‘The light of the knowledge of the glory of
God, shining in tho face of Christ Jesus our
Lord!’ ”
Among his last utterances was this pas
sage from St. Paul’s second letter to Tim
othy: “I am now ready to be offered, and
the time of my departure is at hand. I
have fought a good fight; I have finished
my course, I have kept the faith.” “Yes,”
said the dying man, thoughtfully and slo,w,
“I have fought the fight, but not bravely;
I have run my race, but not well; I have
kept tlie faith, yes”—brightening up and
smiling, and emphasizing every syllable—
“l have kept the faith against men and all
opposition. O, I have kept the faith—that
is the banner; I have held fast to that, and
now I expect to receive the crown of glory!”
Peacefully, on the evening of the 9th of
October, 1868, holding tho hand of his son,
and with three of his daughters around him,
he fell asleep. —Methodist Protestant,
Clturclies for tlie Masses.
Recently, both in this country and in
Europe, the question has been much agita
ted, “How can we reach the masses with the
Gospel?” “How attract the poor to the
place of worship?” A great deal of senti
mental twaddle has been indulged in, in
reference to this knotty question. There is
nothing easier or plainer to my mind. If
you want to attract tho masses to church—
build churches for the masses; not poor
churches —but large, convenient, and beau
tiful, and then invite them, and make them
welcome when they come; and if a little of
the Master’s plan should bo adopted, viz:
“Go after them and urge them to come in,”
it would be found wonderfully remunerative.
Some tell us that the poor will not come to
fine churches because their manners and
dress contrast unfavorably with others, and
they will not go to plain buildings and free
services appointed especially for them, be
cause it is an acknowledgment of their pov
erty. In answer to this, it is enough to
inquire, who furnish tho immense congre
gations that fill all day long, and frequently
for many working days together as well as
Sundays, those magnificent and costly cathe
drals to bo found now iu almost every city
of any importance, which, for beauty and
expense, are an honor to tho people who
provide them, and a shame and a reproach
to those who profess to have a better faith.
The difference is simply this: Romanism
contemplates the poor, and she reaches them
because she intends to and tries to. Roman
ism builds her immense and elegant cathe
drals for the poor, and she attracts and holds
them by it, mainly. There is no monopoly
of choice pews in Romanism, nor impudent
display of fine clothing and jewelry and
equipage, to insult the time and place of
worship, and to humiliate and shame the
poor—there is no snobocracy in Romanism
that smells of petroleum or shoddy—hence
all are equal as members of ono family in
their Father’s house, and they attend tho
services because they love the place and its
associations. Would Protestantism succeed
as well with the masses she must furnish as
ample and attractive accommodations, and
in as free a spirit. Build large, beautiful
churches, with towers and spires, with recess
and vestibule, with stained glass windows or
open dome, with frescoed walls and uphol
stered rffeats and carpeted floors, with illumi
nated texts of Scripture, and statuary and
paintings, if you please, with organ and
choir, anil this not only in the auditorum or
place of the great congregation, but especi
ally in the lecture or Sunday-school room
where tho children meet; let no pains or ex
pense be spared to make it a peafect parlor
or palace, and if you can have fountains and
flowers and singing birds here, so much the
better, in order that the first impressions of
the children in connection with the place of
worship might be of tho most beautiful and
enchanting.— Rev. C. Trusdell, in the Art Re
view for March.
Christ the Stronghold.
To them who are hard pressed by strong
enemies, a sure refuge is indispensable when
the battle cannot be waged in the open field.
The life of faith is a conflict from beginning
to end. Tho world, the flesh, and Satan are
in league against every one who gives him
self to Christ, and these enemies are mighty
as they are implacable. What shall the sol
dier do who is compelled to fight against such
odds? With his best armor and with all his
caro, if left to himself he will bo overwhelm
ed; but Christ is tlie stronghold, whither he
runs and is safe. He is not tho refuge of the
cowardly, for they who believe are bold, but
true valor is over found with them who obey
the order of their captain, and when he calls
to them to fall back, they hear his voice, and
in obedience lies their safety.
Christ is our stronghold. Iu vain do all
the engines of death and hell hurl their mis
siles against the soldiers of Christ. The
reach them, the
\ : in
HI