The Evansville journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ind.) 1866-1870, 1869-09-13

4 DuQiaLeu tue CEdAgGs A1Ab u6 AdA
s'ated that Ministers would be spot
ted by him and others, for voting
against Lay Delegation. He felt moth
ing but the kindest feelings towards
those who were opposed to that meas
ure.
Rev. John Kiger said that ne had
been onnosed to forcing a Ujva voce
vote on these brothers who Cd
ieoted to voting in that way.
He thought a miscOnstructlon
~ the law had been entertained 1
10 some Of the brethren. He I
tIouebt the resolution would obviate I
the difficulty complained of. He had |
been a kind of peace-maker from the |
start, and had done what he could to
prevent the ultra friends of the meas
ure from running it into the ground.
Rev. James Hill stated that there
/ had been no secession in the Metho-
/ dist Church on account of doctrine.
/ All the trouble had originated In
/ Church government. He felt that
this measure of Lay Delegation was
of vital Importance to the Church.
The people had asked for it. The
vote was a representative vote. The
argument that the smallness of the
vote was against the measure was not
good. The same logic would prove
that the Church was opposed to class
meetings, for but few compare
lively attended them; that they
were opposed to prayer meetings and
the missionary work. DIR. Cary had
told him that the defeat of the meas
ure would seriously cripple the Church
ia Missouri There was probability
that the day would come when the
Church North and South would be
united. The Church South had
already adopted the Lay Delegation
! plan, and it was very popular there.
: Should the Methodist Episcopal
: Church refuse to adopt the plan, the
refusal would materially retard such a
! desirable contamination as the union
Of those two bodies. $500
: Rev Hayden Hays said the only in
terest he had was in the prosperity of
] the Church. He had asked himself
and the friends of the measure,
what was to be gained by its adop
tion?" No satisfactory answer had
e been given. We are asked, " Are
5 you afraid of the Laymen?" Certainly
not. He believed theywere as good and
G pieus as the ministers. But the Lay
/ UlCu EOulu uUb Ilu t1Gm5GANGs W
! 1 local interests. The itinerants had no
y local interests. They were prepared
% to vote the greatest good to the
70 greatest number. He warned
q the brethren against topping the
] glorious tree whose green bOughs
furnished such refreshing shade and
= produced so much fruit. He cited
the history of those churches which
had withdrawn from the Methodist
- Episcopal Church on account of Lay
E Delegation. What had become of
4 them? IF Lay Delegation was so de-
sirable, and was to accomplish so
i much, why hadn't those churches ex-
n perienced the benefits claimed for
the measure?
. G. w. Walker obtained the floor,
= and spoke a short time. taking the
j same view of the matter as Mr.. Hays.
e G. N. Sims said he had been
4 slow to accept the idea Of Lay Dele
CATION. He wished to say that while
4 the minority claimed a great deal of
r sympathy, that minority had won
Il derful power, when one vote had
the power of three Reference
had been made to those Churches
which had withdrawn from our
% Church on account of Lay Delegation.
- He insisted that God had not pros
% pered those Churches, because they
had not submitted to the l0iU o.
O majority. He thought the his
!. tory Of those Churches conveyed
Z an instructive lesson. He had
a preached a sermon in lndianapo-
= lis, going to show that laymen al
ready exercised an important influ-
4 ence on the legislation of the church
M ~ Notn "A - -, [fc,-+ogtJ
i. that he was opposed to Lay Delega
ton. How if the wish of the people
is disregarded by a small minority, tn 6
charge that our church is an oligarchy
\ can no longer be denied with success
q He warned the brethren that they
. be careful how they take such posi-.
: ton.
II His remarks produced very pow
! erful effect.
o The previous question was then
a moved.
n Mr.. Walker was allowed to make q
n personal explanation.
b The vote was then taken ON the
" previous question, and was carried.
d The question was then put, Shall
,e the main question be voted on nowY
e and 1t was so ordered.
q The vote was thea taken on the
t resolution, and it was adopted,
d The Conference then proceeded Ia
Y ballot on the question of changing the
d restrictive rule, with the following
It result:
e For Lay Delegation, 60.
d Against Lay Delegation, 80.
# The Bishop announced that Lay
Delegation was voted down, as it re-
{, CURED three fourths Of all the vote
]. cast to be in favor before it could be
Ie adopted,
The following ministo- had their
: votes recorded for and against Lay
d Delegation:
h For Lay Dezegation-John Kiger,
IS James Hill, Cyrus Mutt, John w.
It Julian, Levi johnson, B. T. Raw
: Inns, VIM. NJ. X. Hester, John NJ
v Green, Elias Gaskins. A. w. Shively,
s Calvin Lee, John j. Hight, John
: II, Ketcham, William NJ. Ia
: ring, r. L. Cushman, John
2 Walls, Thos. Alexander, Geo. E. Cul
d mer, VIM. III. Grim, Stephen Bowers,
9 Jos. w. Asbury, ~ NJ. Patterson, S.
t w. McNaughten, Il, A. Heuring.
r Daniel NJ. Smith, John Tansy. Aaron
Turner, @. n. Sims, Lewis e. Carson,
d Lawrence Jones, Geo. W. Bower,
: VIM. z. Armstrong, S. L. Binklev.
John IL: Clippinger, Edward HAYES,
q L. NJ. Walters, o. II. Tansv. III. r.
9 Naylor, Joseph S. Woods, John
Bruner, Gideon Heavenridge. J. r
Likely, l.. Forbes, o. I'll. Smith, j. n.
: Brant, r. Andrus, Erastus Rowlev
W. Il. Irwin. NJ. s. Heayenridge r
I / r Martin T Y Mno~o n ITT