Page images
PDF
EPUB

the advisory counsel of the Bishop or president of the Confer. ence in stationing the preachers.

Signed by all the Committee.

The first resolution being read, the question was taken on it and carried—61 to 25. The question was taken on the second resolution as amended, with the consent of the committee. Carried. The question was taken on their final passage, and carried.

The committee was then ordered to incorporate the resolutions in “the section of the Discipline relating to presiding elders.” The vote was more than a two thirds majority. These resolutions, called in the history of the controversy “the compromise resolutions,” gave great offense to M'Kendree and Soule.

Bishop Roberts seems not to have been opposed to them, and Bishop George defended them. Bishop M'Kendree wrote in his journal : “ The senior Bishop (that is, himself) disapproved of the proposed change; the other two were favorable to some change, the extent not pointed out." Before taking the final vote Soule had been elected Bishop, but so great was his opposition to the resolutions that he sent in his resignation, which was with reluctance accepted by the Conference.

Joshua Soule was one of the great men of the Church, and his unselfish devotion and great service had won for him the affection and confidence of his brethren. They had just elected himn Bishop. His refusal to accept the office created deep concern. Many fancied they saw the beginning of the dissolution of the Church, for the presiding elder war had been growing fiercer through a period of a score of years. In view of these things an effort was made to reconsider the resolutions on the eldership, but the friends of the measure would not yield. Then a motion was made and carried to suspend their execution for four years. The intense excitement of the occasion is detailed in Bishop Paine's “Life of M'Kendree."

The attitude assumed toward the General Conference by the senior Bishop, and also by the Bishop-elect, is a most extraordinary one, and prefigured the attitude of Bishops Andrew and Soule and the Southern preachers in the rebellion of 1844. The position of M'Kendree in his “ Address to the Annual

Conferences," * that he could not submit or give up the powers he possessed as General Superintendent of the Methodist Episcopal Church to the disposal of your representatives” (the General Conference), is the attitude of Bishop Andrew in 1844.

The Bishop boldly declared that he would not execute the resolutions on the eldership, and also that he was not bound by any acts of the General Conference which he judged unconstitutional. In such a case he would appeal to the Annual Conferences, which, he said, “were the proper judges of constitutional questions."

The Bishop-elect took the same attitude of insubordination to the Conference. He wrote to the Bishops who were about to consecrate him, "I solemnly declare that I cannot act as Superintendent under the rules this day made and established.” And yet he consented to be consecrated, and the Bishops were agreed to perform the service, two of them hoping that after his ordination he would obey the laws of the Church, but N'Kendree hoping that he would resist,” and aid him in opposing the execution of the resolutions.

When these things were brought out in the Conference, so great was the opposition to the position taken by the Bishopelect that he presented his resignation.

But the resolutions had been suspended for four years. Afterward Bishop M'Kendree prepared a formidable Address to the Annual Conferences,t in which he argued that the suspended resolutions were unconstitutional, and, instead of taking the rest from labor which the Conference had granted him, he appeared at the Annual Conferences and defended the cause of his Address. The issue was drawn; the Church must submit or impeach the venerable Bishop. And yet his course in thus attempting to control the legislation of the Church and resist the General Conference finds no warrant in the Discipline, It belongs to an epoch of administration that ended with the secession in 1844. But the great influence of the Bishop, whose conscientious devotton to the Church all admired, finally prevailed, and seven of the twelve Annual Conferences declared the resolutions unconstitutional. The other five, being the leading Conferences of the Church, laid the Bishop's Address on the table, and refused to consider it. * Life, vol. i, p. 456.

+ Ibid.,

P. 444.

un

This action of M’Kendree in appealing from the General Conference to the Annual Conferences is in striking contrast to the administration of the Bishops some years later on the slavery question. Bishop Hedding, in the New England and New Hampshire Conferences in 1836, refused to put motions which seemed to conflict with the Pastoral Address of the General Conference of the same year. In explaining his course Bishop Hedding said: “I have uniformly acknowledged my responsibility to the General Conference, whose agent I am." * “We (the Bishops) have always practiced setting aside such motions or resolutions (in Annual Conferences) as we supposed unconstitutional." + In the New Hampshire Conference, in 1838, Bishop Morris refused to put a motion because in his judgment "it approved what the General Conference had condemned.” That the general judgment and administration of the Church in this matter has been with Hedding and against M’Kendree there can be no question.

In the Conference of 1824 the suspended resolutions were permitted to remain still suspended, and were passed on as finished business” to the Conference of 1828. A resolution in the Conference of 1824, that the resolutions are not of authority” because “à majority of the Annual Conferences have judged them unconstitutional,” was passed to its third reading, but as it failed to secure a third vote (which was a regulation of that Conference) it went over to the next General Conference. In 1828 a motion to declare the resolutions unconstitutional was set aside by the following “substitute offered by William Winans and William Capers :

Resolved, That the resolutions commonly called the Suspended Resolutions, rendering the presiding elders elective, and which were referred to this Conference by the last General Conference as unfinished business, and reported to us at this Conference, be, and the same are hereby, rescinded and made void.

This ended the war. It is to be noted that no General Conference ever declared an elective presiding eldership unconstitutional, while the Conference of 1820 proclaimed the opposite doctrine by more than a two thirds majority, and all the most eminent leaders of the early Church, and anthorities in Methodist law, with the exceptions of M’Kendree * Life of Hedding, p. 511.

+Ibid., p. 498.

[blocks in formation]

and Soule, were on the popular side in this controversy. That some of those leaders, from considerations of expediency, subsequently changed their minds as to the wisdom of an elective eldership has not the slightest significance or bearing on the question here examined. We are not arguing a question of expediency, but a question of law.

It is well worth observing that in all these constitutional wars the southern portion of the Church were the "highchurch” party, and stanch defenders of episcopal prerogative. This fact was conspicuous in the Conference of 1844, where those views were elaborated and afterwards crystallized in the “Protest” of the Southern delegates.

The answer of the Church to these pretensions was the speech of Hamline and the “Reply to the Protest," from which we have already made quotations. So in the eldership controversy Bishops M'Kendree and Soule, backed by the South, were the champions of high prerogative, while the strength of the reform movement was chiefly in the North. The Sonthern interpretation of the Church's constitution is succinctly stated by Bishop Paine, of the Church South, in his Life of M'Kendree (p. 416):

Originally the itinerant preachers exercised unrestrained powers; but they saw proper in their wisdom to constitute a delegated General Conference, invested with such powers as the preachers collectively deemed necessary to perform the duties assigned it. Their powers were expressed. What is not expressed is consequently withheld.

But a view diametrically opposite to this has ruled in the Church North, and is correctly given by Bishop Harris, in his work on “ The Powers of the General Conference” (p. 22):

There is not here in the grant of powers) a delegation of enumerated powers accompanied by a general reservation, as in the Federal Government, but a delegation of general and sweeping powers under enumerated and well-defined restrictions.

[Further views on the general subject will be presented in

another paper.]

Art. III. - CHRISTIAN EDUCATION.

Our endeavor, in this paper, is to emphasize the distinction between Christian and secular education, to exhibit the failure to recognize adequately this distinction, and to suggest some measures for improvement. We use the word education solely in its technical sense, referring to the training of the schools. A conflict which has, probably, only begun in this country, is over the question of Christian and secular schools. The struggle between Christianity and secularism presents no phase more important than this. Additional interest comes from the fact that Christian people are not precisely a unit with regard to the issue.

Between the two styles of training in question there is large superficial resemblance—and misleading resemblance. Both aim at culture in certain special directions. These directions are largely the same. The same studies, in the main, are pursued at Ithaca or Ann Arbor as at Middletown or Princeton. This fact is liable to mislead, and doubtless does mislead, many in reaching their practical conclusions. But these external similarities are not of chief interest. Other points we may find, upon examination, exhibiting the strongest and most vital contrasts.

The distinction is fundamental. It relates, first of all, to the ultimate end of education. What is education for? That is a most pertinent and essential question certainly, and one that ought not to be lost sight of at any point in educational proc

To this question Christianity gives a definite answer; an answer not formal, nevertheless weighty and exact. Secularism gives a variety of conflicting answers. The confusion which reigns over the human mind when it separates itself from God appears in the chaos of secular educational theories. For the purpose of easy inspection we may name and arrange these theories as follows: 1. The Popular, " the bread and butter," theory. 2. The theory of Secular Statesmanship. 3. That of Intellectualism. 4. That of Philosophic Utilitarianism. The first is the crude theory floating in the popular mind : education is to help in getting a living; to make living easy, comfortable, and possibly luxurious. The second theory holds

esses.

« EelmineJätka »