The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-10-22
ACENTRAL QUAKER BODY
CONFERENCE ENDORSES A GREAT
REFORM IN SECT GOVERNMENT.
Plan Now Only Awaits Endorsement of
Yearly Meetfngs-Able Addresses
Made Yesterday.

FRIENDS OF America Tor many yCSiS-lie
question of comforting legislative authority
on the CONFERENCE.-The practically settled
yesterday in the session of delegates at the
Friends meeting house. 1t now requires
only the sanction of the yearly meetings
to make this innovation one of the laws of
the church.
Yesterday morning when the delegates as
sembled it was the sentiment among the
majority that the papers read by lEatls
Jones, editor of the American Friend"
and Edmund Stanley, clerk of the Kansas
Yearly Meeting, should be approved by tine
conference. The first of these papers was
on Legislative Authority for the Confer
ence," while the other treated the question
of "A Uniform Discipline for the American
Yearly Meetings" Both papers were along
the same line of thought-advocating a CEN
trail authority In accordance with the ar
rangement agreed on Wednesday afternoon,
the regular programme announced for yes
terday morning was postponed until the
afternoon and the time of the morning ses-
sion was taken up exclusively by discussion
of the ideas advanced by the two papers.
The conference opened as usual with the
devotional exercises led by Robert w.
Douglas, with Francis w. Thomas as pres
ident. AT the opening of the business ses-
sion the conference adopted the following
resolution:
position of the Society of Friends upon the
fundamental doctrines of the Christian
faith and upon those more distinctive doc
trineS of the spiritual character OF the
Christian dispensation, the high priesthood
of Jesus Christ, the priesthood OF all belleY-
ers, the absence of every form and degree
of sacerdotalisn, the conference or divers
gifts upon the church, and the rights OF IN
dividual members in the exercise of their
gifts in their proper spheres under the
leadingS of the Holy Spirit
Communications on the question or CEN
tralized authority were read from yearly
meetings. The Wilmington, O., meeting
asked the conference to consider some plan
of union or federation. The Western Year
ly Meeting spoke of the Society of Friends
as wanting in uniformity and closer or
ganic union. 1t urged that there should be
a common discipline instead of a distinct
discipline for each yerly meeting, but pre-
ferred that autonomy should not be dis
turbed. A communication from the Indiana
Yearly Meeting referred to the quinquennial
gatherings of 1887 and 1892 and the benefits
derived from them. The communication
suggested that the present conference pre-
sent some defined proposition on the ques-
ton of central authority. James Woods, of
New York, who is recognized as clear
sighted Friend, extensively informed on all
subjects pertaining to Quakerism, was the
first speaker on the subject of central au-
thority. He was in favor of such move
ment. He said the question was one that
required careful, sanctitied judgment. He
thought the situation now before the con-
ference was not unlike that which pre-
scented itself to the trainers of the Const-
tuition of the United States The plan should
be carried out so that any Semblance of
coercive authority would be avoided. The
Quaker Church, he said, could not be Co
creed, except by the spirit of God.
Levi Mills, of the Wilmington Yearly
Meeting, was in favor of granting central
power to the conference. He believed that
delegates would be selected by the yearly
meetings for their piety and conservation
to God. well as for their wisdom and
judgment. He declared he had grown weary
of hearing the Friends referred to as a
society only He wanted the church to
have a name that no other organization
could use. name that the church could
enjoin others from using in a court of
equity.
THE OTHER SIDE OF IT
The ether side of this vital question was
discussed by Thomas Newlin, president of
Pacific College, of Oregon He feared that
the granting of central power, instead of
promoting unity would promote division.
Referring to the gathering of the Christian
Church in this city, he spoke of it as having
no central power. He declared the better
exercise of power was not through compul-
sion, but loving influence. For such work
as church extension he would favor a fed
GRAFTON, but he believed it would be a mis-
take to confer legislative power. In the
opinion OF Mr.. Newlin, the. churches that
nave the most power are those that have
the congregational idea. During the discus
sion Ella Coffin, delegate from the Western
Yearly Meeting, offered a prayer asking
that the delegates might be guided to act
wisely.
Charles Tebbitts, of California. did not be-
lieve in strong centralized power. but felt
there should be some kind of an organiza-
ton FOR transacting the affairs of the church
some way in which it could carry on a uni
fed work. The view of the delegate was
that something should be done to provide
this and yet leave the widest liberty Will
lam Pearson, of Iowa, followed and ex-
pressed himself in favor of one great Yearly
Meeting for the church. Esther futile
Pritchard pointed out the fact that as the
overwhelming majority of delegates to the
conferences are men, the grantiag of leeis-
lative powers would tend to give authority
almost exclusively to men. Although he
was not a woman suffragist she believed
as a Friend, in maitalning equality of men
and women.
explained that the idea of delegated author
ity is not new one in the Friends Church
lie SAID the Yearly Meetings are very large
only a fraction actually attended them and
power is practically left in representative
hands. He pointed out that there should be
q central power and to have uniform action
there should be system of control Francis
w. Thomas in his remarks on the subject
put the question to the delegates thus
Would 1t not be as safe to intrust the ques-
ton of a uniform discipline to q few care
fully selected men as to allow the adoption
by minority bodies. He feared the church
was drifting to Congregationalism growing
from a diSrespect to discipline. The qucs-
ton, as he saw it, was whether the church
would have more power without a discipline
at all than with adherence to some few
uniting principles The speaker asserted
that he was not in favor of q rigid admins
tration. The church needed fewer and more
practical laws. James Carey Thomas who
spoke Wednesday against the theories set
out in the paper of Rufus Jones, spoke
again on the subject of a central power for
said he loved the Friends better than any
thing in this world. He was grieved to note
a tendency away from democracy to centra'
authority. He was against authoritative dis
cipline or appropriating power One of the
women who spoke on the question was Ruth
E. Murray of New England, who said she
was in favor of unfication rather than sep
aration of interests.
REPORT ON GENERALIZATION.
At noon the conference adjourned, with
the understanding that report on the SUBJ
ject of Capitalization of power in the church
would be made later in the day by the BUSH
ness committee. At O'Clock the committee
was ready with report. Before ii was read
however, Rufus Jones and Edmund Stanley
were given an opportunity of replying to the
discussion of their respective papers. Mr..
Jones said he was not in favor of a restrio .
ton of liberty, but he wanted both union and
liberty. Mr.. Stanley said he believed neither
he nor Rufus Jones had acted hastily In
presenting their views to the conference.
He was willing to rest the question with the