The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1895-01-09
, As to thc historical nyolution q

LnaL lay representation III our JeQerll
and Annual Conference was granted
by the General Conference of 1866.
composed exclusively of preachers. and
by two thirds vote. 1t is simply
Justification of history to say thateven
this small representation was granted
grudgingly only after a stubborn
fight"
Letus see whether the editor has
all the history with him or not. Any
one who has read in even a cursory
way that old standard of Methodist
literature, the Methodist Magazine
and the journals of the successive
General Conferences, must recognize
the justice of DR.. Abel Stevens remark
in his history of American Method
ism page 500. when he says this ques-
ton Of Lay Representation has sell
dom ceased to agitate more or less
American Methodism from the first
decade Of its organization to our day"
Are these simply Justification of his
tory?'
To be specifc-the Methodist Maga-
zine of 1924 contains page SD the
| full report of the committee appointed
in response to numerous memorials
that had beset this and the preceding
General Conference, on the subject of
Lay Representation. There is some
what of asperity in the report denying
the request. The memorialists made
repeated efforts, and being repeatedly
refused. withdrew in 1880, and ac-
cording to McCintock and Strong and
other Cyclopedias, organized the
Methodist Protestant Church with
some 5000 members, introducing Lay
Representation and discarding the Of
flee of Bishop. Are these all falsifi-
ers Of history, tool
The slavery question then absorbed
the whole attention of the church,
resulting decade or more later in a
Northern and Southern Methodism.
Scarcely had this issue been settled
by separation. when the old question
of Lay Representation resumed its
sway in the General Conference; and
! the journal of the General Conference
of 1854 page 365) records a resolu-
ton on the snbject, which, together
with several memorials, We're referred
to committee. This committee dis
posed of the petitions in quite sum
mary Misunderstanding the request
and characterizing as revolutionary
even the attempt to effect such a
change. Is this also simply falsifi-
cation of history
In the General Conference of 1858
the question was again under consid-
Grafton and again the Conference re-
fused to make any change, See jour
nal 1858, page 5S2).
Then came the war and devastation
and prostration. After this hiatus,
the General Conference of1S66 assem-
bled. DR.. \. L. P. Green had sent
out circular advocating Lay Repre-
sentation, and it was warmly discussed
in the Annual Conferences-passing
most by very narrow majorities. DR..
Green championed the resolution on
the floor Of thesC!enreal Conference.
Special night sessions We're set apart
for discussion of the subject, and the
discussions were projected far into the
night. I have the assurance Of several
| living members Of that General Con-
ference that the measure, after forty
years of agitation and one schism, still
met with strong and able opposition
and in the final passage was opposed
by strong vote OF irreconcilables.
| Does this look like spontaneous
concession2 In view of these lncon,
trovertible facts is it not the literal
truth to say that Lay Representation
was granted onl ly after a stubborn
fieht?" If fight that extended, as
| Dr.. Abel Stevens says. from the first
decade of its organization to our day,
more than forty years is not properly
styled "a stubborn fight, then con-
fess do not understand what language
means.
| Now Just word as to Bishop Nc
Tyeire's history quoted by the editor
| to sustain his position. honor and
even venerate the Bishops memory,
but that does not relieve me of my re-
sponsibility to seek truth and tofollow
it when found. 1t seems to me that
the preponderance of testimouy-Gen-
eral Conference journalists against
the Bishop on this point, and as an
honest man am compelled to follow
the testimony. It is not unusual for
people of ordinary intelligence" to ac-
cept as gospel truth whatever they
may find in "the book" but l must
be permitted to say that it is a little
unusual and even surprising for one
like the editor of The Advocate, who
is supposed to know how history
is made, and who has access to the
sources of history, to predicate a
dogmatic assertion upon single quo
tation from a single author withoutre-
ference to numerous conflicting data.
Was the editor ignorant of these data,
or did he assume ignorance on the
part of his readers? However this
may be. since the editor prefaced his
criticism of my statement with an eN-
pressed purpose to adjure all person
ality and motive on the part of the
author of this remarkable statement.
I suppose / shall be excused for
| declining to notice the epithets. mean
| and low with which he closed his
editorial.
J. WM. STOKES.
Orangeburg, July 24th.
Note:-It is worth notice that the
| editor of the Advocate in his anxiety
to break the force of the discrimina-
ton against laymen in the matter of
representation on the floor of the An
nual Conference pointed out by me.
hold that the General Conference IS
the only law making body: that the
Annual Conference was almost entire
lv an executive body, dealing with
! matters of routine-and hence (he
argueO there was no need of larger
lay representation. In this also he
followed Bishop McTyeire. Yet when
Bro. Herbert made precisely this ar
| gument few weeks ago. in reply to