The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-09-16

| convention a necessity cannot with safety
pc longer denied a hearing: They are sin
| cere IN their firm belief of the justice Of
their demand. They also think, as there
| are near three million laymen and less than
| twenty thousand preachers, that their de-
mand Tor simply equal voice in the gov
| eminent of the church is as modest as ii
| is reasonable. This is the single. and,
only purpose, of this large and earnest as
THAT this request has been denied in the
past has been not only a discredit to the
church, but also impairment of her
power and usefulness. A continued refusal.
we think, viii work greater disaster in the
future The Methodist Church is a Protes-
tant Church, in a free county Her govern
ment must be in complete accord with both
of these great facts.
CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED.
ut has been conceded by the wisest
statesmen that Christianity is the main
prop and support of popular government
The members of the churches are the chief
promoters of moral and intellectual culture
and are the leaders in the progressive force
of human affairs. Any government existing
and ruling without the consent of the gov
erned is a despotism and at war with the
very spirit and essence of Christianity. In
a republic like ours all power is rightfully
given to the whole people Yet, with all the
admiXture of ignorance and vice in the
masses the civil government IS success,
and has proven her great strength in
war as well as in peace.
Certainly then, the church can trust her
membership composed of the purest and
best to administer all our affairs. To dOuht
1t would be to concede that Christianity is
a failure.
ITO withhold the government Of the
church from the many and retain it in the
hands of the few. is an implication CT a
lack OF honesty and sincerity of the laymen
ana is putting dangerous weapon IN the
hands of the unbelever and the skeptc
that they have not failed to use. 1t IS also
a reflection on the clergy, that after more
Df In
America, the membership have not attained
sufficient intelligence to take good care of
what belongs to Them.
Mr. Cumback declared that no bishop or
preacher could defend the autocratic policy
of the church. I'm fact" said he, sit is
indefensible." He then spoke of the loss
to the church Of the business talent Of the
laymen and limited at mismanagement of
the various enterprises of the church under
the control Of the clergy. He said:
eff the laymen had an equal responsible
ity in all these things we believe the
church would not only have the benefit of
their best business ability, but also their
closer connection with the affairs of the
church would call forth more zeal and sac
rifice for her welfare. Continuing, he
said:
THE restrictive rule, as it is termed, de-
clares that the chief making power OF
the church shall not change the represen-
tation of that body, unless the proposed
change is submitted to the annual confer
ences. 1t must then receive the indorse-
ment of three-fourths of the members of
these lesser assemblies.
This rule gave no recognition of the lay
constituency 1t only makes it appeal to
the smaller constituencies of the preachers.
The millions of the laymen are entirely ig
nored, and If one more than one-fourth of
the preachers vote in the negative, the
change will not be made.
THE LAYMEN IGNORED.
This put the control OF the representa-
ton of the church in the hands of the few
hundred preachers in the Annual Confer
ence, and the great majority of preachers
and laymen are dominated by this insig-
nificant minority. Against this we are
here to-day to earnestly protest. Our
church has no constitution. The General
Conference is the sole governing power.
Each meeting of that body is supreme and
Independent. 1t has the inherent right to
repeal or amend any former action of the
church congress- This is not only in ac-
cordance with sound reason but the prin-
ciple has been recognized by the highest
judicial decisions.
1T is, therefore, within the power of the
next meeting of the General Conference to
repeal the SO-called restriction or to ignore
it and declare equal representation, on a
ratio that will not make the body any
larger than it is now.
The speaker, in closing, voiced his oppo-
sition to the framing of constitution by
the General Conference, and said the
American plan would be to call a conven-
ton elected by the people for the purpose