Obrázky na stránke


Chartered Fund; and the assertion is reiterated in the books under review. But it is not true, notwithstanding. The Canada Conference did not receive a dollar, according to the official records of the Church. We, however, think the Canada case of as little importance in the decision of the property question, as in the constitutional question.

To notice the many mis-statements of fact with which the “ Appeal to the Public” abounds, would be impracticable within the space to which we are limited ; and it would be unnecessary were it practicable. But we cannot pass over the misrepresentation of the case of Dr. Pierce. The "Appellants" say: “Take the case of Dr. Pierce, the representative of the South, deputed to bear the tender of Christian salutation to the Northern General Conference, rejected with scorn too bitter even to be civil, because accredited from a slaveholding Church.” It seems, by the above quotation, that the appellants think Dr. Pierce might have been rejected with scom-nay, with bitter scorn, if not too bitter—without rendering the Conference liable to the charge of incivility. Now we differ with them in this, as in almost everything else. We think that to have treated Dr. Pierce with scorn at all, whether bitter or sweet, with any, even the least degree of scorn, —would have been very uncivil indeed; absolutely contraband Christian etiquette, and, what is worse, of Christian obligation. The Doctor is a very worthy man, and an eminent minister of the Gospel. There were, we believe, few, if any, members of the General Conference, who did not highly esteem and sincerely love him.

The General Conference did, however, decline to enter into the " fraternal relations" with the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, which he had been commissioned to offer ; but they also did by

resolution” tender to him personally the assurance of their respect and Christian regards, inviting him to attend their sessions. This is not all. The conference did not reject the proposition of Dr. Pierce for the reason, any more than in the manner stated by the appellants. It was not because he was accredited by a slaveholding Church that he was not received in his official capacity, but because he represented a belligerent Church, which had been and was still waging a ruthless war upon the Methodist Episcopal Church along her whole southern border. The General Conference thought that fraternal relations implied peace at least, if nothing more; and they could not declare that a Church was at peace with them, much less sustaining fraternal relations, who, according to abundant evidence in their possession, had violated in numerous instances the obligations of the very “Plan of Separation” on which they based their right to erect their Church,—entering into the ter


ritory of the Ohio, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, and Philadelphia Annual Conferences, seducing interior societies, stations, and circuits from their allegiance, and taking the “pastoral oversight” of them, contrary to the express provisions of the “Plan " they so much glorify; and, what is worse, taking possession of houses of worship, and performing ministerial services in them, from which the ministers of the Methodist Episcopal Church had been driven by lawless mobs, who neither feared God, nor regarded man; thus enlisting “Lynch law” as an auxiliary to the "Plan of Separation. ”

Nor was all this the act of individuals, for which the Church South” could not be held responsible. The very worst aggressions complained of had their origin in a resolution of the Louisville Convention, authorizing minorities of conferences, not adhering to the Southern organization, to send delegates to their General Conference; and the first General Conference held under the “organization” specifically, and in due form, sanctioned these aggressions. The General Conference was therefore under the necessity of annulling the “Plan of Separation,”—boundaries and all, seeing that no boundary lines were observed or acknowledged on the other side.

The “ Appeal,” while it pours out unmeasured abuse on the General Conference for declaring the “Plan of Separation” null and void, insists vehemently, that the “Plan" did not fix any line of separation, but only the basis of a line; as if a line of demarcation could be separated, even in idea, from its basis. This, however, is mere logomachy. The annual conferences in the slaveholding States were allowed, upon the occurrence of a certain contingency, to separate themselves from the Methodist Episcopal Church and to enter into a distinct ecclesiastical connexion.” The Northern boundary lines of these conferences must therefore be the limits of their jurisdiction, and the boundary line between the two Churches. Some latitude of choice was allowed to societies on the border, but none to entire societies. The last were to remain undisturbed under the care of the ministry of that Church within whose territory they might be found to reside. The appellants, however, declared that even the interior societies, circuits, stations, and conferences, who did not, formally and by resolution, vote to adhere to the Methodist Episcopal Church, are to be considered neutral ground; yet neutral ground which may be, as it has been made, an arena of strife and contention between the Churches., The line, although by the admission of the appellants the General Conference fixed the basis, has really no basis at all, but is liable to be pushed North or South as strength or address may prevail. Surely it was a very harmless thing which was done by the General Conference of 1848. It only repudiated a boundary, which was declared by the opposite party to have neither fixed line nor basis, in earth, air, or water.

Upon an impartial review of the whole matter,—both the action of the General Conference of 1844 in the case of Bishop Andrew, and the controversy which grew out of it,--Will not any disinterested inquirer come to the same conclusion to which a celebrated United States Senator came, and which he announced in his place in the Senate, that he could not perceive any good ground for the division of the Methodist Episcopal Church? The Senator said he had read the whole controversy carefully; and we may suppose he was furnished with all that had been written upon the Southern side of the question at least, as he is one of the advocates retained to plead their cause in the suit at law they have instituted, to procure a division of the Book Concern and the Chartered Fund; yet with all his sagacity, and with all the bias of an advocate in favour of his clients, he had not been able to discover any good cause for their separation from the Church they had left. This, we believe, would be the conclusion to which any other impartial umpire would come. The cause of separation, therefore, must be looked for elsewhere, and will be found in the political contests to which slavery has given rise, and the exasperated state of feeling in the slaveholding States, which has unfortunately grown out of it. The Methodists in these States generally partook of these feelings, and the ministers still more than the private members, and they hastened to sever one of the ligaments which held the political confederacy together. How long the remaining ligaments will abide in their integrity and strength no human foresight may determine. May our merciful God, who has the hearts of all men in his hands, make them perpetual! Our confidence in statesmen and politicians has been fearfully shaken by the obvious infusion into their patriotism of party interests and party resentments, especially as we have seen these feelings operating with such irresistible force in men whom we had greatly esteemed—and do still esteem--for their wisdom and piety. To an overruling and omnipotent Providence, therefore, may we look for salvation from the awful, incalculable calamities of a political convulsion, bringing with it immediate sufferings too fearful to contemplate, and consequences which may be felt by the whole family of man. For who can doubt that the experiment now making by the United States, is destined either to prove the advantages of free and popular government, or to disappoint the best hopes of humanity in the capability of man to secure the blessings of liberty regulated by law, under purely republican institutions ? But God is our refuge, in Him will we put our trust.

[ocr errors]



P. Schafs



§ 1. Origin and Design of the Sacred Ministry. CHURCH government is grounded in the Christian Ministry, which is originally one with the Apostolate, and includes in itself the germ of all other Church-offices,

Its institution flows not from men, but directly from Christ. As the Lord was about to leave the earth, he clothed his disciples, whom he had trained for the purpose previously by a personal intercourse of three years, with a commission to carry forward his Divine work, to preach the Gospel to all nations, and baptize the penitent in the triune name of the Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier of the human race. As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you." For this purpose he imparted to them by an outward symbolical act the Holy Ghost, in the way of pledge first, and afterwards in full gift on the day of Pentecost : “And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost." With this gift he joined at the same time the power of the keys; that is, power in his name and by his authority to open or shut the gates of heaven, to proclaim and certify remission of sins to the penitent, as well as Divine punishment to the impenitent: “Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained.” John xx, 21-23; compare Matt. xvi, 19; xvii, 18; xxviii, 18-20. It is a false view, when Socinian and Rationalistic expositors see in this a special gift, which belonged to the apostles only in their own persons, and so became extinct with their death. Rather, the apostles appear here as the representatives of the ministerial office generally, of the whole congregation of the faithful indeed, to which the right of Church discipline is expressly granted, (compare Matt. xviii, 18 with verse 17,) just as the promise also of the Lord's continual presence passes over the apostolic age, and reaches forward to the end of the world. (Matt. xxviii, 18–20; xviii, 20.) The ministry of reconciliation is indispensable for the continuance of the Church, as ell as for its first establishment. Hence Paul says of it, in distinction from the Old Testament ministry of the law: “If that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious." 2 Cor. üi, 11.

The object of the Christian Ministry is no other than the object of Christ's own mission, -namely, the redemption of the world from sin and error, and the extension and completion of the kingdom of God, as a kingdom of truth, love, holiness, and peace. Apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers, are divinely appointed, “for the perfecting of the saints for the work of the ministry,* for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come in the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.” Eph. iv, 11–13. The spiritual office or Church ministry (dlakovía) is the bearer of God's dispensations of grace, the regular channel through which the blessings of the Gospel flow to mankind, the organ through which the Holy Ghost works upon the world and transforms it still more and more into the kingdom of God. From its different sides and functions it takes different names. It is called the ministry of the word, (dlakovía Toù lóyov, Acts vi, 4,) because the preaching of the Gospel is its first business, according to the commission from which it springs; (Matt. xxviii, 19 seq.; Mark xvi, 15;) again, the ministry of the Spirit (lakovía toŨ TrVeúuatos, 2 Cor. iii, 8,) which maketh alive, in distinction from the Old Testament ministry of the letter, that killeth; the ministry of righteousness, (dlak. TNS dikaloouvns, ver. 9,) which comes from faith in Christ and is owned of God, in contrast with the ministry of condemnation as proclaimed by the law; the ministry of reconciliation, (dak. rñs katalhayñs, 2 Cor. v, 18,) as brought to pass by Christ between sinful men and a holy God.

Hence appear the endless importance, dignity, weight and responsibility of this calling. It is the main instrument for the execution of God's plan of mercy towards the world, and from it proceed almost all movements and advances in the Church. The apostles, and in wider view all ministers of the Gospel, are "the salt of the earth,” by which the human family is preserved from corruption and kept in right savour; they are “the light of the world,” from which the rays of eternal life are shed into the night of the natural heart, and made to irradiate all the relations of the living world; (Matt. v, 13-16;) they are “co-workers with God," (1 Cor. iii, 9,) and “stewards of the mysteries of God," which they are required faithfully to administer, and for which they must here

Alakovía is to be taken here in its wider sense, as denoting the particular service or function that falls to the members severally of Christ's body, for which they are to be fitted by the diakovia in the narrower sense—the ministry of apostles, prophets, &c. Compare on this whole passage, Eph. iv, 11-13, the instructive and thorough exposition of Stier, Comm. zum Eph. Br. II. S. 96 seqq.

« PredošláPokračovať »