True Democrat. (Paulding, Miss.) 1845-18??, 1847-08-11
&c Charter as the Wi,d. to do,o on arho ace please"

! ed by the general conference and are respon
sible to that body only for their conduct, and
that it is bishops duty ito fix the appointments
of4he preachers for the several circuits, and in
! the intervals of the conference, to change, re.
/ ceioe and suspend preachers as necessity may
require" Aud the bishop himself is of course
the judge ofthe necessity 10 the absence OF
the bishop, this same power is 10 the hands Of
his deputy the presiding elder. Ii is stated on
page 80 that his duty is TO change, receive
and suspend preachers in his district during
the intervals Ofthe conferences and the absence
OF the bishop Let l. then be understood
1. That the people in no one Circuit or
station can have anything to do, legally, with
regard to who shall bp their preacher. The
bishop or presiding elder may consult if he
choose, but he is under no obligations TO do;
and they can fud no fault with him for not do
ing II. The appointments are usually made
out at the time Of the annual conferences. but
the people are not even Represented there by
any one authorized by them, and if they were
it would make 40 difference, for the appoint
menls are not made out in conference but in
private room, by the bishop alone, unless he is
pleased to advise with his presiding elders
The people, it is true can petition for the man
they want but the bishop is not obliged to lis.
ten TO their requests lfthry reach him; and in
cases where the presiding elder sees fit to pre-
vent such petitions, they are not suffered. |
have known of Presiding elders who would
not suffer such pet itons to be sent, and stated
if they were sent, that they would feel 1t their
duty to oppose them. Such case as this oc-
Cured not many years since, in one OF the more
western districts Of this Miss. conference, and
the people submitted 10 IT, They, of course,
either knew he had power TO shut out their Pc
ttion, or they had become so accustomed to
subserviency that obedience was to them sec
ond nature. Bishop Holding, in his remarks
on siationing the preachers says: The prea.
chers and people are justified, no doubt, in Of.
fering petitions on this subject where they see
il necessary; but some of them are too tena
cious" He then goes on to show why they
cannot be gral6ed; and his reasoning is all
very well, showing that the bishop, and rot the
people, is to decide. And If he is suitably in
formed. and wishes to do right he may do tol.
cradle Justice to all hut if it should be her
wise-should be be ignor ant OF the state of a
particular people, OF wish to crafty a preju
dice against them, or be disposed to CRAFTY
some iavorite place at their expense.-then
they must suffer; for it is in his power to moLe
them suffer by bad appointment Let it be
understood
IT, That there is nc appeal from his ap.
continent whether good or bad aud no cir.
cut or station can reject a preacher Whl is
sent to them by bishop Or presiding elder and
still retain their relations to the church liza
bishop refuses 10 change a preacher at the re.
quest Of the society, and that society persists in
refusing ono who is regularly appointed to The
charge of them, or should they turn their prca.
cher away without the consent Of the slallona.
ry authority, that society cannnot remain con.
necledWnh the church lf this act was not in
itself secession, they would be expelled for dis.
obedruce 10 the order and discipline of the
church
An important decision on this case was |
made BY Bishop Waugh, at Springfield confer
ence somy five or SIX years ago. After the dif.
fculurs at Lowell in which the preachers !
sent there were refused the Row Messrs Mer-
ill and Sargent proposed two questions TO the
bishops to s'ule a principle ia The government
Of that church. The first OF these questions is
as follows:
Should society under the snperintcnd. /
sRce OF the authorities Of the Methods, Epsco.
pal church. reject the minister cons,iluuonally /
appointed 10 serve them. aud reson 10 meas /
ires not recognized Ia the government Of said |
.hurch, to supply lhrm,alges with a teacher or
listor, woHld ihe slcirty thereby violate the
principles Of MrIhodisni, aud Sc
,e1e from The church r.
To thlJ question, after some preliminary re-
marks the bishop replus.
"Fron The above stated facts mud PRINCIPLES
{ follows, | think, that any sOcirty pursuing
he course nlmed Ia the question prupounIed
" brothers Merrill AMI Sargent. would there
" violate the fundamental priucipl' Of Meth
'dsm aud should BE- REGARDED as having scce-
led from the CHURCH"
The second question was simply whether il
would be right and proper ior the preacher ap-
lonled 10 any such seeding church. % public
Y declare that they bad seeded This the
ishop answers ia the Affirmative, stating that
would BE- both Constitutional aud proper
These are very important drcisions, aud
you'd recommend lkose sJclrties who rsiuse TO
cccive their preachers from coEference, or the
ishop 10 look at them. and sc what RELATION
ley stand % to the VI + church. There Gao
e but just two things about d,-either they
lust receive q preacher ffom the bishop or
residing elder. which Is the same thing. with
u making any private OF decided arrange
Ieni for themselves, or they are secsdrrs from
.e VI + church, and must Be 50 declared
very socifiy musi gi.e up on attempts 10 sup
" ilsell wlh a pasor or mus be viewed as
ccdmg from The church. This Is perfectly
- fror. fhn f.fforrs~.s rrrrrr.. r.rr. -. I