The Bossier banner. [volume] (Bellevue, Bossier Parish, La.) 1859-1952, 1859-12-09

Episcopal church, no laymen are per
mitted to take seat in her general
and annual Conferences, because the
laity are allowed neither part nor lot
in governmental affairs, and the RIGHT
Iof suffrage is withheld from them. In
the Methodist Protestant Church, the
laity are entitled 10 an eqaul number
of delegates in tae general and annual
conferences. with The ministry because
tue right of suffrage is exercised by
them, and its government stand upon
The republican basis. In the Methodist
Episcopal Church tqe laity are not per
mitted by discipline to elect any officer
whatever, in the church, not even
trustee to hold the church properly
paid for with their own money. (See
Diseiplin of Methodist Episcopal hurch
South edition 1854, page 2l7, para
graph Of section 81 because the gov
ernment is contra republican, and the
exercise Of the right Of suffrage deemed
to membershi2 In the Methodist
Protestant Church, all the officers Of
the church or society are elected by the
sutfrages of the membership, because
this natural and indefensible rights
guaranteed to them by its most admi-
rable constitution, which is based upon
the mutual rights Of the ministry aud
laity.
The laity of llre Methodist Episcopal
Church being denied the right to rep.
resentatioa in the general and annual
conferences, and not being. permitted
to elect their own church officers, and
the sole authority being vested in the
hands of the itinerant ministry, the
government is an aristocraey. The
laity Of the Methodist Protestant church
having equal weight with the ministry
in both, the general and annual confer.
ences, and the, constitutional right to
elect al their officers, the government
is exercised by the ministry and the
laity upon the representative principle
and is, therefore, republican. i
[ Therefore, the difference between the
Methodist Episcopal and the Methodist
Protestant Churches, is precisely the
same that exist between Aristocracy
and Repnblieanisln. The two churches
hafmonize ia doctrines, but disagree in
the governmental principles, the poiity
of the Methodist Episcopal Church,
received its mould from men who were
brought upin the British school, The
Methodist Protestant Church. on the
other hand, received tile mould of its
polfv from men who were schooled 10
the principles of republicanism, and
had been brought up on the consecfated
soil of liberty, which had been baptised
bv the blood Of American patriots
The systems differ just as much
as their respective patefnities differ, one
of these systems is entirely American,
BON on its natal soil, the other is.
exotic, and of foreign or British extfac-
tion, the formerly carefully guards the
rights and privileges Of all classes Of the
membef~hip. and sfofls the most am
pie checks against The abuse of power
as wei as safe guards against NAL adj
ministr lion. The latter strengthens
and elevees the hands OF our aflsto
craiicand privileged class 10 the church,
hence the point of difference between
these systems Of church polily is most
Istfikingly developed, by comparing the
one with the other and inquiring into
their origin, moreovel, # we choose TO
extend our inquiries into the New Tes
lament Scriptures, we discover at once.
that the apostles concluded to The laitv
Iin the primitive church and authority;
and influence in the governmental af-
fairs, which Is denied TO the laity Of
the Methodist Episcopal Church, BY
its one man power system. The ppiity
of the Methodist Episcopal Church is
based upon the suppositien that the