Methodist Unity

The Divisions of Methodism have been its bane and its blot; who does not hope and pray that old animosities and controversies may be oblivionized, and that a spirit of reconciliation and reunion may preside over the counsels and policy of the Methodism of the future? Why should there not be at once fraternal recognition and intercourse between the different Methodist communities to prepare the way for united action?

The above paragraph is taken from the London Methodist Recorder. A careful reading of it should be an occasion of thoughtfulness to every intelligent Methodist. Our joy in the wide extent of Methodism is sadly and necessarily dampened in the consideration of the parties and partisans naturally engendered in the divisions of our Church. We thank God that Methodism is becoming more and more unified. One in doctrine, one in the essentials of Christian experience, one in the great purpose of spreading scriptural holiness over these lands, there is no good reason why we should not be one in the common work of saving souls, nor least of all is there any good reason why we should be in each other's way in this work.

Unity and Union are two things. A connectional union of all Methodism may be impracticable. Indeed we consider that it is so. "To keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace," not only among Methodists, but among all Christians, is not a matter of taste, but is a sacred duty, solemnly and authoritatively announced in the Scriptures.

To say that such recognition and intercourse already exists is to meet the question in a summary and professional way; but the glaring fact still stands prominently out that there is a lamentable want of that essential unity between these two Methodisms, in the absence of which there can be no union of effort and purpose and plan which will exist otherwise than in name. If we are to attempt an answer to this question, and it seems to us that we cannot afford to neglect it, then our commonplace way of putting the matter is that a little more common sense and a good deal more of religion than the most of us have, are the prime necessities for the prompt settlement of these open issues.

Beginning at the right place, let us ask how many of us have found a means of grace in considering the questions at issue between the two Churches? How many of our church editors have written on this subject to the edification of those, who look to them not only for the news and the facts in contemporary church history, but who look to them for spiritual nutriment. How many of us have been able to think and talk dispassionately and unpartisanly and charitably when considering and discussing these marked issues? In proportion as we have had more of the spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, have we been the better enabled to feel and to confess that we have not had on our side—whatever that side may be—a monopoly of what is right and what is just?

We beg leave just here to refer to a matter which, more than any other, has tended lately to disturb the equanimity and good feeling of our great Methodist public. The bare mention of the name of Bishop Haven will suggest this matter to our readers. Ought the Bishop to have been introduced to our General Conference? Suppose that he ought to have been, was a failure to introduce him any reason to interrupt the flow of fraternal feeling? Was there any very strong brotherly feeling existing, if it could be so easily disturbed by a mere failure of courtesy? Suppose it had [...]