North Carolina Newspapers

XXX. NO 3' THE ORGAN OF THE NORTH CAROLINA CONFERENCE OF THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. , : ' VOL. ESTABLISHED 1855 I Alitor :nlKMiU'- For the Advocate. ijev.J- Uanu aiul vision. Ttr Co-i ot Attending ConferenceThe Ex pense of Moving. EY REV. S. D. ADAMS. t most cordially agree with Bro. ,,nn' when he says : " I have no axe to rind on a muc ui ulutl- ;rronize me in any way, L-. tn ak his brother to do pnce nor told so." And ! ',,-ith him, will acquiesce loyally in whatever decision a majority of my urrthren may reach. I have always Se so -I shall do so still. But I rnnot agree with him in all his state ments. Iam not quite sure he agrees xttiiinMU all the way through. t Salisbury he voted for the me morial to theGeneralConference to div ide our Conference, if we could get the Holston territoy lying in North Caro j:na and upon a line running with the eastern borders of the Charlotte and Salisbury districts. He says every teacher and every layman, but one or fio, voted for it. Bro. Mann voted for it and surely he will " stick to it to tie last" But in his Morehead speech he seeems to forget that memorial, for which he voted so heartily, and calls for a division of the present territory of the. North Carolina Conference into two equal Conferences. Poes Bro. Mann now stand by his rote at Salisbury, or by his speech at forehead f JVM he stand by the lilishunj action, or the Morehead ut 'trance? He cannot do both, for they are decidedly opposed to each other. To use his own stirring, if not burning words; he was in earnest when he spoke : " I cannot believe my brethren of the North Carolina Conference will eat their words, and ;i lackon their solemn record," (made at Salisbury) at the behest of a new born, morbid sentimentality." Nor can I, though it might come from one of the very best men amon us. nere is anotner argument preseiueu bv hm " Our Conference is so llarge that it makes the attendance of oW preach rs on its sessions, and thfe. moving from one charge to anotherA too ex pensive." This argument contains tvwro items. J The first is C T COST uF ATTENDING COFERENCE. Our preachers are as well supported as those of any Church in the State. Our people are as intelligent, wealthy, large-hearted and liberal. The Meth odists of our Conference are a noble people. Our preachers are moral heroes But with all this, our preach ers are generally poor some of us very poor, hard-pressed ; have not a dollar to throw away ; not one to spend improperly. We must economize, hen a dollar goes, we must know -vhere it goes and what it brings in return. Bro. Mann says it costs our preachers an average of $10 to attend Conference. Now, I in quire, is that $10 thrown away? Is there nothing received in return worth more than 3io? One of the great sources of information to our preach ers is travel, seeing different places, jingling with the people in different sections, and thereby extending ac quaintance, as to both the people and places. The cheapest acquisi tion of information of that sort is on Conference occasions. Take the last Conference as an illustration. It cost a 10 to attend ; in return the preacher traveled, say a hundred miles, was en tertained a week by a kind family, Much became his friends for life ; he as associated with the best people, Unversed with the most intelligent, saw the city, its churches, its public wildings, its mercantile operations, Jjs vessels of different size and make, m cotton compress, and then received pe inspiration of looking out on the grand old Ocean. Conference ad journed, he returned to his charge bet F equipped for his work, and if he could illy spare the 810, he has gain ed information worth much more, and .hlch will help him in his work, and 8-;e him advantages he could not ?tnerwise have. A preacher told me f Jew days since that he would not re S:3 for his visit to Wilmington at e last Conference. The return is uf er th.an the expenditure. In this if tiVC S.a5d nothinto of" the advantages 1 Conference sessions, which are e"y great worth more than $10. second item is : THE COST OF MOVING. ij.r re are several causes for mov- I s7 The preacher is in demand ; I erv'ces are called for ; he goes. L;fw''-He desires a change; HT;ls t0 educate his children, which cannot do where he is, or the health ."ny manes 11 necessary, or from some other cause a change is de sirable. Third A change is necessary to his usefulness. He has been in ihe same section until his influence be gins to wane, and a new field is nec essary. A change is made. But .vh.it ever may be the cause, the I ishop does not move a preacher oftene-- or fur ther than he bebeves the good of the work demands. If there be any force in that argument, it would be as strong against time as distance. If you say divide the Conference and shorten the distance of moving, and thereby save expense, I would ask, why not ex tend the pastoral term,lessen the num ber of moves, and thereby save ex pense. Is there not about as much reason for the one as the other, and none for eitheir? But in meeting this heavy expense of attending Confer ence, and of moving from one charge to another, Bro. Mann says : " Some times the money was hard to raise had to sell the old family horse and buggy at half price to get it we felt the strain for months, through the year." And then he exclaims, " Oh ! how many cruel hardships have grown out of this thing in the experi ence of our best men." Now, if Bro. Mann's statement means anything, it means this much : This fearful drain on the pocket, this " cruel hardship that is crushing the very life out of some of our preachers," is caused by the enormous size of our Conference, and the unnecessary ex pense incurred in attending its ses sions, and in moving from one charge to another. And if you will only di vide (but do not go back on your Sal isbury record) this "cruel hardship will be gone forever ; the "old fami liy horse and buggy" will more be sacrificed at half price, but the sun shine of better days will come, and the preachers be relieved of this press ing, crushing burden. If you do not divide you are overwhelmed, but if you divide, you shall live and prosper! But does Bro. Mann mean to say, that, because we have the territory, a long move follows as a necessity, and without good cause ? He talks about a territory 400 miles in length, as if a poor moneyless brother would be placed in the Epis copal sling, and hurled all that dis tance just because it could it could be done. No, no ; that has never been done to this day, and it is safe to say it never will be. The Bishop never moves a brother simply to afflict him, but for his good, and for the work. Bro. Mann gives a case ; he knows the man ; that brother had to move several hundred miles with a large family. It cost him $75 ; he had to borrow, and scuffle to get the money, and commence the year in debt, among a strange people. I do not know to whom he alludes. I sympathize with that brother, and would rejoice to know .he was re lieved. But I will venture to make a few in quiries in regard to that move : First Did that brother move a greater distance than that embraced in the North Carolina Conference when it was first formed? It then, and ever since, even before the trans fer of the Shelby and Charolotte Dis tricts to the North Carolina Confer ence, extended from the Blue Ridge to Hatteras, from the Pilot Mountain to Gum Neck, a distance, say of 300 miles. Did he move so far as that f Second Did he move a greater distance than would be embraced in either Conference should we divide ? Third Did he move a mile further than Bishop Parker, after consultation with the Presinmg Elders, believed to be best for him and for the work? Fourth If there was anything es pecially oppressive in his case, and Bro. Mann knew it, he has sufficient influence with the Bishop and Presid ing Elders to have arrested it, unless it was unavoidable. Why did he not do it, and relieve that brother from his financial embarrassment ? Or, if it was unavoidable, why present it as an argument in favor of division? Light on these inquiries might help very materially in forming an opinion as to the influence that case should have on the issue in hand. I will give it as an opinion, that, in the last sixteen years, of which Bro. Mann writes, while there have been, say 2,500 ap pointments made by the Bishops pre siding over our Conference, there have not been twenty-five of all that number who have moved as far as the distance embraced in the North Caro lina Conference when it was first formed, forty-eight years ago. All that time the entire Conference was subject to these long moves, and were ready for the work, thinking they were serving God and the Church ; and that too when there were few xailroads, and wagons were brought into requi sition for moving the family. But now you are gravely told, this must be stopped, or you yield to the behest of I RALEIGH, N. C, WEDNESDAY, AUG. a new born, morbid sentimentality, j xou must divide or become "the great ecclesiastical bore of the State." When a man yields to " a new-born, morbid sentimentality," and changes his ground, he may become too warm in the advocacy of his new opinions, and in his great zeal may fail to real ize facts as they are. I regret that Bro. Mann, in his great zeal, saw proper to intimate, or insinuate, that his brethren who differ from him in opinion are preparing the way to make our Conference " the great eccle siastical bore of the State," and that in refusing to divide we "eat our (their) words," and yield to " the be hests of a new-born,morbid sentimen tality." Well, that is rather hard on Bro. Mann, or those who may differ from him, and he may decide which. (To be continued.) For the Advocate. The Division of tlie Conference. From a Laman who was at Memphis in 1870 How the Transfer was Made What is to be Gained by Division ? BY JUDGE W. J. MONTGOMERY. Bro. Reid : In the outset of the division controversy I purposed to re main passive, but the statement re cently made that the " forming of a Western North Carolina Conference would be in accordance with the real and expressed object of the cutting off of the Charlotte and Shelby Districts from the South Carolina Conference in 1870," is so much at variance with my recollection of what was done, and the object for which it was done by the General Conference of 1870, that I now think it incumbent on me to re main no longer passive. I was a resident of that part of North Carolina which belonged to the South Carolina Conference, and the South Carolina Conference did me the honor to send me as a delegate to the General Conference of 1870, by which body I was appointed on the Boundary Committee. I served, and think I was present at every meeting of the committee, hence I had full opportu nity to kn(jw what was said and done, being greatly interested in the matter. What occurred was deeply impressed on my mind, and though some time has elapsed, I think I have a distinct recollection of the proceedings. When the petitions asking to be transferred from the South Carolina to the isGclh .Carolina Conference were laid before, the committee, I moved that the parts of North Carofii&s in the Holston, Va., and South Carolina Conferences be added to the North Carolina Conference, (thus putting the whole State together) and that the North Carolina Conference be then equally divided. This was stoutly re sisted by the committeemen of the Holston and Virginia Conferences, and successf ully, upon the ground that the Church in those bounds had not asked, and did not desire to be trans ferred. When the committee became satis fied that the Church in the territory which was transferred desired to be transferred were ripe for the change, the committee reported to the General Conference in favor of the Li. ClUJl IIA . Dr. Shipp offered a S J the report of the committee, adding the territory which belonged to the Holston and S. C. Conferences to the North Carolina Conference, and di viding the enlarged North Carolina Conference. This substitute icas tabled, the report of the committee was adopted, and the territory was transferred, icithout any condition ex pressed or implied, icithout any under stand ing, tacit or expressed,thal the ter ritory teas transferred or " cut off" for the formation of a new Confer ence, and icithout any committal of the North Carolina Conference to the formation of a new Conference. I know that Dr. W. H. Bobbin, who was the North Carolina repre sentative on the Boundary Committee, never made any pledge or promise to divide; but on the contrary, he re peatedly stated to the committee that the North Carolina Conference did not come seeking the territory, but that the petitions manifested the fact that the people and the church desired the transfer, and the North Carolina Con ference would receive the territory and do the best it could for it if the Gen eral Conference would transfer it. On the next day, after the matter had been settled, as above stated, Dr. Kennedy prepared a paper and submitted it to Dr. R.eid, the chairman of the North Carolina delegation (the exact phrase ology of this paper I do not now re collect, not having the proceedings of the Conference before me, nor having seen them for many years). Dr. Reid signed the paper, and it passed the General Conference without opposi- tion. The purport of this paper, as I now recollect, was to give the North Oarohca Conference power to divide before the next General Conference, if it should be thought best to do so. lhis action was not intended, and was not understood as committing either the General Conference, or the North Carolina Conference to division, but left it discretionary with the North Carolina Conference to divide, if in the opinion of the Conference the in terests of the Church required di vision before the next General Con ference, whicH would convene in 1874. I have not had the pleasure of at tending many of the sessions of the North Carolina Conference, and am not so well posted on its proceedings as I ought to be, but from the best in formation I can get, taking preambles and resolutions together, I do not think the Conference has committed itself. J do knoxo that the North Carolina Conference teas not com mitted, directly or indirectly, to di vision at Memphis in 1870, either by thr General Conference, or by the del egates of the Xorth Carolina Con ference. If the General Conference thought that we ought to divide, why did it not say so ? Why leave it optional with the North Carolina Conference ? Be it remembered that the transfer had already been made, before the adoption of the "Kennedy paper." ihe object of the Kennedy paper was simply this : Some emergency might arise, before the nent General Con fereuce would convene, which would render division necessary, and hence the discretion was given to the North Carolina Confeience, that if the trans fer did not prove advantageous to both Church and people, if the old and the new territory did not become "homogeneous," and work well to gether, then divide. Since the transfer Methodism in this part of the transferred territory hrrs advanced materially, numerically and spiritually, the North Carolina Conference has taken good care of us 4 We love it, and it will be a sad day to many a Methodist heart if the news should reach us that we were divided ; that many of those to whom we have so long looked for counsel and guidance, were severed from us. This is sentiment, and this is a pro gressive age, and we must not indulge it. I have not met a single Metho dist in Cabarrus county, and very few in the adjoining counties who favor division. I occasionally see one, where the Preacher inCharge is warm for division, who favors division. What is to be gained by division ? vWJJ the ministers or people be bene fitted by division ? Some write that a new impetus will be given to the forces of the cifiirch. New energy will be imparted to tm? .ministers sim ply because they belong' to... a little Conference. A new spirit of liber ality will be infused into the people ; their hearts will be softer, and their pocket-books not so tightly clasped, if they belong to a little Conference. But is this so ? Will a minister, feeling " Woe is unto me if I preach not the Gospel, ', preach any better, pray any more earn estly, or visit any oftener in a small Conference than in a large one ? It does not depend so much upon where a man is. as what he is. "Pro- moiion comes neither from the East or the West." Will the people yield any more wil iingriy to tne cans 01 tne gospel in a small Conference than in a large one ? Will the people in a small Confer ence respond any more liberally to the wants of minister and church than the same people in a large Confer ence ? When long removals have to be made, is it not fortunate that the Bishop has plenty of territory ? Will division aid "the well-being and prosperity of our church institu tions V1 Will division endow the colleges we now have, or relieve them of debt ? Will division increase our love. for Methodist institutions ? Will not di vision not release many a Methodist from the obligation he now feels to patronize the institutions of his own Conference, if that institution should be in another Conference ? " Put a peg here, will you ?" Divide, and if human nature is the same now as m the past 11 the past is any criterion by which to judge the future, we will see new enterprises and institutions, aspiring to be Confer ence institutions, and those we now have, " will languish, and languishing" die. If a large Conference cannot or will not suport an institution, how will division help the situation ? Can or will the half do more than the whole, or will the halves, acting as separate organizations,do more than the whole, acting in concert? Divide and there will then not be 12, 1885. as many " old fogies " in the one Con - ference as in the other, or is it pro-1 posed to put all the " old fogies " the non-progressive men,m ourConference? Ifso, I want to be in that Conference. In religious matters give me the 'old logies'7 the men who walk and teach ' the subject. And, as such, the hot others "to walk in the old paths," Is house process, initiated by "Holiness the Church ready for division ? I ask i Associations," is to be condemned, the advocates of division if they do and disapproved by the Church. Noth not know that a large part of the ing but evil, in the iongrun, can come Church is now opposed to division ? Is ' of this movement, ( ranks and fana it wise, is it prudent, is it expedient, 1 tics, unless a chec: is put upon the to coerce such a large opposition ? Will it not cause dissatisfaction, heart aches and strifejwhich will last till this genertion " falls on sleep." Concord, N. C. For the Advcate. Our Virginia Correspondence. BY REV. JOHN E. EDWARDS, D. D. "HOLINESS ASSOCIATIONS." Whenever any one enters an objec tion to the organization of "Holiness Associations," in the Methodist Church, he is put down, by the ad vocates and patrons of such measures, as a non-believer inScriptural holiness, and an opposer of associated effort to promote this distinctive doctrine of Wesleyan Methodism. This, as it strikes my own mind, is a hasty, not to say an uncharitable construction to put upon the conduct of those who honestly oppose such organizations. It by no means follows that a firm and decided opposition to the formal or ganization of "Holiness Associations" is fairly to be construed into disbelief in the doctrine of holiness, as taught in the Scriptures, and as set forth in our standards on the subject, as an attainable state in this life. We all believe in the doctrine, and all our preachers proclaim it from our pulpits. But, not a few of the best and holiest Christians in our Church, clerical and lay, are decidedly opposed to the or ganization of "Holiness Associations" in theJChurch; and, for several reasons. 1. Because the organization of such associations, in the Church, carries with it, by the fairest implication, the declaration that theChurch itself is not a "holiness association." It may be an association of regenerated be lievers a body of converted men and women, but it is not a "holiness as sociation," in the sense of its being a body of strictly holy, sanctified men and women, devoted 'to the spread of Scriptural holiness over these lands.' Such is the ground taken by the holi ness circles. The organization of a "holiness association" within the pale of the Methodist Church, North or South, with its officers and other reg ulations, constituting it a separate and independent organization, with its own autonomy, and with the declared ob ject of promoting personal holiness, involves the assumption of having a higher 2nd aim than is proposed by the Church itself; and, iri 59 m, casts the grave imputation upon the Church that it occupies a lower ground, and proposes an inferior standard of piety than is avowed as the proposed aim and object of the "holiness association." 2. Because, such organizations, in a given pastoral charge, or, in the bounds of an Annual Conference, have the effect to disparage the value of the ordinary means of grace, as the Scripturally ordained agencies and appliances for the building up of be lievers "in their most holy faith," and bringing them up "to the stature of men in Christ Jesus." Such measures never fail, and in the nature of things cannot fail to produce the impression uDon the mind of the masses of Church members, that something other than the stated conditions of Christian growth and development, as indicated in the General Rules of our Church, is necessary to a higher state of ma turity, in the Christian life, than is at tained at the time of spiritual regener ation. The following conditions are specified in the General Rules; name ly "the doing no harm; avoiding evil of every kind; doing good of every possible sort, and as far as possible to . 1 Jl 1 1 It M all men,' to wnicn is superauoeo; "at tendance on all the ordinances of God; the ministry of the word; the supper of the Lord; family and private prayer; searching of the Scriptures, and fasting or abstinence." I repeat, that the organization of "Holiness As sociations," with the avowed object of using other, and widely different means than these for the attainment of "holiness," as contradistinguished from the work of spiritual regenera tion, is not only without Scriptural warrant, but involves, by the fairest implication, a positive discount on re genration by the Holy Ghost, as giv ing the title to, and the qualification for the kingdom of heaven. More than that, it disparages the value of the means indicated above, as the prime condition on the use of which, ( $3.00 ieic a.m:m ( Payable in Advance . we are gradually to attain the higher and more mature stages of Chrisian experience and usefulness. The hop, j skip and jump process of obtaining maturity in the divine life contradicts the plain teachings of God's word on j organization of such Associations, will precipitate trouble. The scriptural conditions of spiritual growth ''the blade, the ear, and full corn in the ear" are ignored by these Associa tions. They propose a sudden leap from the childhood of grace to the full maturity of ripened manhood. The exercises, in the meetings of these As sociations, generate and foster a fitful, feverish, spasmodic sort of religion that is not content with the ordinary means, prescribed in the word of God, by which we are to promote the steady progressive development of the life of God in the soul. 3. Because they are violative of the social element in our holv religion. They are Pharisaic; "I am holier than thou." We want the sanctified Church members to mingle with the unsanctified. These associations have the effect to widen the chasm between sinners and Chirst. They put Christians at disadvantage before the enemy by dividing the army, and drawing a line between the holy, and the unholy: between the sanctified and the unsanctified in the Church. The army should stand together; rally to the same standard; respond to same bugle call; sleep in the same tent. In the battle, the brave, prefect soldiers should stand shoulder to shoulder with the week, timid, doubtful recruits, and stimulate them to heroic, noble deeds by a lofty example. Union will give strength. 4. These separate associations are to be discouraged, and discomtenanc ed, because they have the effect to im pair the influence and usefulness of our most valuable preichers, who do not, and can not fall in with theholi ness movement, in this separate, as sociated form. Not a few of the fath ers, who toiled at the foundation of Methodism in these States; men who have preached holiness of heart and life, and who have beautifully illustrat ed the doctrine in their daily walk and conversation, are now to be hurri ed and worried in the meetings of these associations, and at "holiness camp meetings," by cranks and fanatics, because they do not go up to be prayed for, as seekers of salifica tion, by this new, short cut process. It is positively insufferable, that good and true men, who have preached and practiced the doctrine of Scriptural holiness, all their lives, should now be disparaged in their piety, and dam aged in their influence, and really forced into apparant antagonism to the doctrine, and t hat too, by the lead ers of these "Holiness .Associations i PERSONAL OBSERVATION. I have lived long, and been some what of an observant man, and withal have been jealous for the honor, purity, and power of the Church at whose altar I have served for more than fifty years; and, I here and now, have to say that, so far as my obser vation extends, I have never known an instance in which the net result (in the way of lasting good ), of any of special, holiness meetings has paid for the candle. A fictitious excitment has been brought up by them, that has burnt out like a shaving fire; and, in six weeks, everything has gone down below zero. The stated services have been neglected; the ordinary means of grace have fallen into dinse; the pastor, if he did not join in the meet ing, and shout it to the echo, has been damaged in his influence, and the word preached by him has become insipid and powerless, and only those have been left to do the work, and bear the burdens of the Church, who were the toilers and burden bearers, before the holiness meeting was held. So far as my observation extends, the truly holy and sanctified Christians, in all my pastoral charges, have lived it rather than professed t. They have everywhere been a power in the Church, and have promoted Christian holiness by the irresistible influence of a noiseless example. Every pastor al charge should constitute a "holiness association," and every service should be a "holiness meeting." What abiding good has come to our church, north or south, in Great Eri tan or America, from all the noise and namby-bamby books of which Aunt Phebe Palmer was the author I Where are the prominent results follow ing: from Rev. Mr. Inskip's holiness meetings, and holiness mission around the world? Who, of all the promi nent leaders in these movements,have (Concluded on Second Page.)