The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1894-11-28
ssPreachers and Laymen."
OR.>crRrRc s g Nov Q e


to the many where the organ of the church
has denied to the membership who sup
port it the most ordinary fairness and JUS
tice. Very truly yours,
J. WM. STOKES.
Here is the article to which reference is
made and which explains itself.-EDrToE-]
Under this caption the editor of the
Southern Christian Advocate, in the issue
Of July l9, attacks statement which. he
says, recently appeared in one OF our
county exchanges" AS am the author OF
the statement, and as the statement was
made advisedly, I take it will be permit
ted to give the reasons which Justify the
statement Since accuracy Of statement Is
the gage of discussion laid down by the
editor, it may as well be recalled that the
statement which he says recent y ap-
peared," appeared in one of his county eS-
changes something like six months ago.
Why the editor Of the church organ, VINO IS
usually quick to resent anything that can
be construed into an attack on the Cnurch'
should have allowed so grave mlssate-
ment, as he evidently thinks this is, to go
unchallenged so long; and why, having
taken up the cudgels so tardily, he should
have wreste6 this one paragraph from its
context in the body Of discussion which
be had arbitrarily shut out Of the Advocate,
are questions that will arise in every
thoughtful mind.
Here is the-full paragraph which the ed
itor garbled and then criticized:
Finally he insinuates that I am arraying
the laymen against the clergy. On the
contrary I am standing for truth and the
~ ~ no 1o1. ho Oh, vi
nine thousand lay Methodists in South
Carolina paid SIT 7,357.56 to the support Of
tie ministry and the institutions OF the
church, and yet they are allowed only 40
lay delegates on the floor Of the annual
Conference which disburses this large sum !;
while $50 local and travelling preachers are
represented by 200 delegates. Even this
small representation was grudgingly grant
ed only after stubborn fight, AS it is,
such representation as is given lay mem
bers is almost entirely under the control of
the preachers in the last analysis. If there
were no conflict between preachers and
laymen until I came into this discussion.
why have the clergy fought every effort to
give lay members proportional representa-
ton in the councils of the Church? Does
anyone suppose for moment that the Ad-
vocate could have been used 10 outrage and
abuse laymen. and they denied the right to
defend themselves, il the lay membership
had had representation in Conference pro-
portionate to their number and their dona-
tions?"
The issues raised by the editor fall un-
der two heads-frst the logical relations Of
lay representation iu our church polity;
second, the historical evolution of lay rep
resentation in our ecclesiastical system.
These are topics cover the whole ground Of
controversy.
In the first place, then, what is the log
ical relation of lay representation to the
Other features of our system? The specific
point at issue, raised by the editor. is upon
my statement that "69, 900 lay Methodists
in South Carolina paid S177,357.56 to the
support of the ministry and the institutions
of the church, and yet they are allowed on
ly 40 lay delegates upon the floor of the
Annual Conference which iisburses this
large sum, while $50 local and travelling
preachers are represented by 200 delegates" I"
This proposition he disposes Of thus: "Ev-
eryMethodist in South Carolina with even Or
dinary Intelligence knows that the amounts
paid for the support of our preachers is es-
timated by laymen, collected by laymen,
and disbursed by laymen, and that the
Annual Conference does not handle or dis
burse single cent of it." In rigid, literal
sense, possibly it would not-b. proper to
say that the Annual Copfefence handles or
disburses any fups But will the editor re-
sort to such psapable sophistry, in face Of
tire ssact that it appoints its agents to attend
4, - 5oko t. oS <l,o
fact that the fund for superannuated
preachers, bishops fund, educational fund,
and many others, are unquesionably dis
bursed by the agents OF the Conference
either at Conference or during the year,
and the results passed in review at Con-
ference? To hold that the Annual Con-
ference does not handle or disburse any
funds, because, forsooth, the funds are
handled and disbnrsed by its agents,
would be puerile playing with words. And
this is just as true Of the funds collected
and paid out for travelling preachers as It is
in the case of superannuated preachers or
bishops or any other fund. While the
amounts paid for the support of our
preachers is estimated by laymen," as the
editor says, they are usually estimated in
the presence Of the preacher and under his
urgent appeals, too often regardless of
food or drought or the poverty of the peo-
pie. While it is collected by lay,nen and
disbursed by laymen," truly enough, it is
estimated, collected and disbursed by lay
men who are practically the appointees of
the preacher, the agent of the Conference.
True, they are elected by the Quarterly
Conference; but they can be elected only
upon nomination by the preacher, by a
body, the majority of whom were elected
upoa the nomination of the preacher in
previous years. What is to hinder the
preacher from nominating only those
laymen who think to suit him? Is it not
reasonably sure that he Will nominate such,
if they can be had
Take concrete case. The last Quarterly
Conference for the year in given charge
is in session. a working majority of whom
were elected upon nomination of the
preacher in past years. Salaries on the
charge have been steadily pushed upward,
while the ability Of the membership has as
steadily tended downward. Bro. A and
Bro. B, sitting stewards. resisted on ad-
vance in assessment last year because Of
special disaster from food and drought and
storm-and they are not nominated for re-
election, although they are true and faith
ful, and represented the feeling of the
mem bership. They are not nominated by
the preacher-not that they fail to repre-
sent truly their people. but because their
views do not suit the preacher-aud hence
they cannot be reelected. To this extent
"such representation as is given lay mem
be1s is almost entirely under control of. the
preachers in the last analysis" This is the
only natural construction to be placed
upon my language, and hence the effort to
prejudice lay representatives of past years
against me by constituting my statement to
mean an impeachment OF their int gritty,
savors strongly of playing to the footlights.
2. As to the historical evolution Of lay
representation in our ecclesiastical system.
The editor says with great emphasis here
also that 'tte veriest tyro in Methodist his
tory also knows that lay representation in
our General and Annual Conference was
granted by the General Conference of 1866,
composed exclusively of preachers, and by
, t,,o th;-Sc yota r. 20 q; n,,,l,, a fo1c: 90