|
[Retrospective entry:] May 1816
May 1st 1816. our General Conference
convened in the City of Baltimore. Previous to this, tidings
of the death of Bishop Asbury reached us. In the death of
this great and good man, the American Methodists have lost
not only a tried friend, and faithful Bishop, but also an
affectionate Father. It is true, he had his spots and
blemishes, which, from his elevated station in the Church,
were the more visible. If, at any time he manifested a
partiality to his favourites, and an indifference to the
sufferings of individuals, these failings may find an
apology in the common frailties of humanity, and in the
determination to make every thing subserve the general good
of the Church. To accomplish this object, the interest of
individuals must be frequently sacrificed, — If a love of
power may be justly attributed to him, we may safely
conclude that it originated from a conviction of his ability
to use it for the best of purposes viz., to the general
diffusion of Christian knowledge. If he manifested an
aversion to scientifical attainments among the Preachers, it
doubtless arose from a fear that it is extremely difficult
to combine knowledge and a pious zeal together; probably
concluding that the latter is more essential to a Gospel
ministry than the former. His continual desire to keep the
ministry poor, may be accounted for, from the apprehension
that riches are dangerous auxiliaries to aid the ministry in
the discharge of his duty; and if he had approved of
measures to insure a competency to men of heavy and
expensive families his name would have been transmitted to
posterity with a juster claim as a Father to the fatherless.
Having no family of his own to provide for, he could not
enter into the paternal feelings; and hence neither the
entreaties nor tears of suffering fathers, could, always
move him to plan his measures, in the distant and
oppressive removals of Preachers from place to place.
Accustomed to make continual and great sacrifices himself
for the sake of Christ, he thought, perhaps incorrectly,
that others, whatever their circumstances, ought to do the
same. But his unbounded thirst for the salvation of souls,
arising from a penetrating sense of God's immense love, and
their lost and ruined state by nature and practice, his
genuine and deep experience of the religion of Jesus Christ,
his many virtues, his great powers of mind, his extensive
knowledge, his comprehensive view of subjects, his
penetrating genius, and his skill in managing and governing
so complicated a machinery as the Methodist economy, secured
to him the confidence of his brethren, and the respect of all
who were honoured with his acquaintance. He was indeed a
man, but a man who had a superior claim upon the Methodist
ministry and people, to any other, however eminent for
talents and piety, who may hereafter arise. We can have no
more father although we may have ten thousand
instructors in Jesus Christ. I believe, but few among us,
expected that any other person would ever claim the
same authority and contend for the same undefined
power in regard to stationing the Preachers, as was voted to
Bishop Asbury. In this, however, we have been sadly
mistaken. At our last General Conference,
a very interesting question was introduced, which indeed,
has frequently been agitated in the Conference. The question
was, Whether the presiding elders should be appointed solely
by the Bishop, as they always have been, or whether he
should be nominate them, and leave it to the Conference to
confirm or reject such nomination; and that the presiding
elders thus chosen and appointed should form a council of
appointment to assist the Bishop in stationing the
Preachers. Whatever may be said against the mode of electing
the Presiding elders, (although that appears to me just and
reasonable) it is certain, I think, that no rational, or
scriptural argument can be brought against the necessity and
expediency of a council of appointment. When this power was
delegated to Mr. Asbury, it might be used with safety and
advantage, because the connexion was then comparatively
small, and Preachers few, and all young; consequently he
could have an intimate knowledge of all the circuits and
preachers. But in the extension of our work, the increase of
the number of preachers and members, it is utterly
impossible for any one man, (unless he be miraculously
inspired) to have such general and particular knowledge of
the whole work and all the peculiar circumstances of each
individual preacher, as is absolutely necessary to form a
correct judgement in regard to fixing the stations of 6 or 7
hundred men annually. Whatever might have been plead in
favour of this principle in the days of Father
Asbury, no consideration can justify the practice now. A
person is selected from the body of Preachers, to be Bishop,
not particularly because he is the best qualified of any,
but because so many and no more, are wanted, and because he
is one of the best. Now to suppose this man can have such a
superior knowledge to all his brethren, as not to need their
counsel, in matters of the first importance to the Church,
is truly ridiculous; and the principle can never be defended
until scripture and reason are discarded. Indeed the
principle is discarded in practice, from year to
year; and why it should be plead for in theory, is
unaccountable. To delegate an authority to a person, who,
by continual practice, acknowledges his incapacity to use
it, is to the last degree, absurd. But in the present
instance there is a power lodged in the hands of the Bishop,
which he is not capacitated to use; for if he were, why does
he counsel with the presiding elders, and others respecting
the stations? To give one man unlimited power over 600, many
of whom are equal to himself in age, experience, wisdom,
erudition and piety, to remove them at pleasure, to transfer
them from Conference to Conference, without even assigning a
reason for his conduct, is a practice repugnant to every
principle of reason and common sense. If this principle be
not exemplified in practice, it is an acknowledgement that
it ought not to exist; and he who thus discards it in
practice, and pleads for it in principle is as inconsistent
as him who pleads the use of poison in his food, and yet
dare not partake of a morsel himself for fear of its fatal
consequences; and he also manifests to the world, either
great weakness, or a desire to have power lodged in his
hands by law, merely for the name of it. I feel it my duty
to lift up my voice against a theory fraught with such
incalculable mischief to mankind — Such is its nature and
tendency that, unless it is peacibly given up, it will
produce a convulsion in the Church, if not a total
annihilation of the episcopal office. Men may bow to it a
while for peace sake; but the bow being bent to an undue
tension, will sooner or later, fly back, with such velocity,
as to strike the man who holds the string of power, with
ponderosity. I sincerely pray that the time may soon arrive,
when this part of our government will be so modified as to
suit the gains of the people, and conciliate the affection
of the Preachers.
|