66

superstition which they abhorred. It took its rise in relic worship.* To keep the true idea of a Christian Church before the people they called their places of assembling Meeting Houses, and their formula. was, The Church of Christ meeting or worshipping at such a place." For this they pleaded apostolic sanction, the Church which is in their house." Some carried their views to such an extreme as to deny that any sanctity attached to the place of meeting, and to hold that when the Church was absent it might be fitly appropriated to any secular use not in itself sinful.

In their times these sturdy Nonconformists did well to bear their testimony against prevalent error, and in favour of forgotten truth, in a very decided manner. But the times have changed, and we can look at things more calmly, and may I not say more intelligently, than they did when the objects of a cruel persecution, or when engaged in exasperating controversy with those who sought their extirpation. Many points which the early Nonconformists considered vital to their cause are now relinquished, and many usages, which they condemned are adopted by their representatives at the present day. Only the most bigoted amongst their descendants would now consider the use of an organ in worship, the adoption of a liturgy, the chanting of the Psalms, or kneeling to receive the Lord's Supper, so many approximations to popery. And so by degrees the term "Meeting House" is beginning to disappear as the designation of their places of worship, and the term "Church" to be used in its stead; and the change can find able advocates on historical, etymological, and doctrinal grounds.

Methodists never adopted the phraseology of Nonconformists with regard to their places of worship. The founder of Methodism in his day, forbade their being licensed as Meeting Houses. At times they were called "Preaching Houses," which at first was a literally exact description of the use to which they were appropriated. The more general designation which they bore, however, and that which has continued to this day, was "chapel." This is an ecclesiastical term, and had a well-understood meaning in the Church of which Wesley was a clergyman, and in communion with which it was his oft expressed determination to live and die. "Its earliest signification was that of a separate erection, either within or attached to a large church or cathedral, separately dedicated, and devoted to

Capella, from which the word " chapel" is derived, was a kind of robe, and the robe of a saint gave its name to the place it was kept in. So that primarily chapel was a chest containing relics of martyrs; then it meant an oratory or place in which the chest was deposited; then a place of worship containing one altar, attached to a church or subordinate to it, hence we hear of the mother church and a chapel of ease; that is a chapel to ease or relieve or help the mother because the attendants to it are too numerous, or because those belonging to it parochially live at too great a distance for convenient attendance. In the Imperial Dictionary the origin of the word is thus given, "It is said that the kings of France, in war, carried St. Martin's hat into the field, which was kept in a tent as a precious relic, whence the place took the name of capella, a little hat, and the priest who had the custody of the tent was called capellanus, now chaplain. Hence the word chapel came to signify a private oratory."

+ Tyerman's "Life of Wesley," vol. iii., 511.

special services. The sacrament of baptism was not usually administered in chapels."

Here we have suggested at once the reason for the selection of this word to designate those buildings in which the followers of Mr. Wesley met for the religious exercises he sought to establish. It was perfectly in keeping with his ecclesiastical views as a churchman, and expressive of that relation to the Establishment of this country which he wished his people to hold. He never meant them to leave the Established Church, and so his "helpers" were not allowed to baptise or administer the Sacrament, nor the edifice in which they ministered to have the ecclesiastical title which would intimate that in them these ordinances were observed.

With our ecclesiastical beliefs, and our avowed relation to the Established Church, the use of the word "chapel," as a proper designation of our places of worship, cannot be justified on any ground save that of custom. They are not now devoted to any special services, as they were at the beginning, services intended as adjuncts to, or supplementary of, a fuller service held in the parish church; but they possess the full privilege of any ecclesiastical building. We not only preach and pray and sing in them, but we administer the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, and solemnize the rite of holy matrimony. To call them synagogues, tabernacles, or meeting-houses, is a usage which can be rationally defended, for those names have some appropriate meaning in them, but to call them chapels, with our altered convictions and circumstances, never; unless it be found that the name has got too much into popular use to be superseded by a more truthful one. In that case ignorance and prejudice and not intelligence would have the sway over us.

But we are asked, and the question may deserve a moment's attention, Where is the sanction of New Testament usage for this use of the word at all? Well, it is considered by some that in the Apostolic writings the word is at times employed to designate the place of meeting. Acts xi., 26; 1 Cor. xi., 18-22; 2 Cor. xiv., 34, are given as instances. But the point here raised is not worth contending about, unless it be asserted, or can be shown, that the New Testament provides us with some definite and authoritative name for our places of meeting, or the buildings in which we come together for religious purposes, which we are bound to accept and employ. No one will venture to assert this, and certainly none can give proof of it being the fact. It is very probable that during the period in which the New Testament was penned, the Christians had no buildings specially erected for the purpose of their ministrations and devotions. The accommodation afforded by private houses, or subterranean excavations, or recesses of the forest had to serve their need until more tolerant times appeared. But when those times came, and they availed themselves of the advantage of having appropriate edifices to meet in, by a natural and almost necessary usage in language, the edifice took the name of the congregation. Primarily, “the Church is a congregation of faithful men in which the pure

Chamber's Encyclopedia. Article, Chapel.

Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance." Secondarily, the Church is the edifice in which a congregation meets to fulfil the functions of a Church. And where is the confusion arising from the double application of the word? Who puts the primary meaning into the secondary use of it, or absorbs the living congregation in the material building, unless by perverseness of disposition?

Does any one apply the poet's interrogation, "What's in a name?" to this subject ? What can it signify by what name our places of worship are distinguished; they are neither more nor less than what they really are on account of their name? Such language is used either in ignorance or without due reflection. Truthfulness in every department of life is always important. Our words should represent our ideas and convictions, and where possible they should do this, both clearly and fully. Mr. Wesley recognised the propriety of this and so "Society" and "Preaching House" were the terms he adopted, and maintained as far as he could, as the designation of his people and their places of assembling. He was truthful and conscientious in doing so. He would be no party to misleading anyone, even in an incidental way, as to his views and purposes. Now the same conscientiousness requires us with changed views and purposes. on ecclesiastical questions to change our phraseology, and bring it into harmony with our principles. We have done it partially by designating our "Societics" Churches; let us do it thoroughly, and give to the building in which we meet for Christian fellowship the same appellation. Not to do it is formally to allow the assumption of the National Establishment to be the only Church of Christ in the land, and to take a lower social and ecclesiastical status than we are truthfully entitled to. In fact, the existence of a State Church in this island is undoubtedly the chief reason why our chapels are not called churches. In America and our Colonies, where no state church is, the name is universally adopted to distinguish religious edifices, and a fitter word for the purpose cannot be found within the compass of the English language.

And after all, this is our main reason for contending for its use. Church, being interpreted, is the Lord's House. What an inadequate idea is presented to the mind, if we put any intelligence into our use of words, when we say, Let us go to chapel, or meeting, or preaching! But knowing the language we employ, when we say, Let us go to church, we in one word give the invitation to go to the House of the Lord, the House in which His people meet as His people to offer to Him prayer and praise, to be instructed in His truth, to observe His ordinances, to seek the manifestation of His spiritual presence, and to obtain the blessing which cometh from Him out of Zion-even life for evermore.

THE FIRST GENERAL CONFERENCE OF THE METHODIST CHURCH OF CANADA.*

BY THE REV. JOHN A. WILLIAMS.

PERHAPS no body of men ever met together to legislate for the Church under fairer prospects or greater encouragements than the General Conference of the Methodist Church of Canada. The branches of the Church they represented had been for some time engaged in a movement, by which, forsaking differences as the basis of fraternity, they might unite on the foundation of their essential agreement, and so stand on the platform of Christian brotherhood and equality. This, through the Divine blessing, has been accomplished; and now, for the first time, they meet to legislate for the Church according to the basis they had each accepted. If the responsibilities were weighty, there was also much to cheer them. It would have been unpardonable ingratitude to have forgotten the past. True, there were no traditions reaching back into the misty centuries, but they had at hand, and within the memory of living man, a history of conflict, effort, and achievement, such as has not fallen to the lot of any other Church in this Dominion; and looking out upon the Church of to-day, they accepted the means it possesses, the energy of its creed, the expansiveness of its economy, the intelligence and hearty liberality of its adherents, combined with the position which by Divine favour it now enjoys, as a bright augury of its future success and triumph. We do not now care about the figures, which by some are regarded as mere slate and pencil progress, but we look at the Methodist Church in this Dominion with feelings of devout gratitude. Feeble in its beginning, it was for years subject to reproach; scorned, if not persecuted; without an educated ministry; contending with poverty and undeserved disparagement; it yet pursued its one great purpose of spreading "Scriptural Holiness," and has had much to do in moulding those institutions which have made our country our glory and our praise. The present position of the Church will be taken by all who value loyalty to truth, as a marvellous expression of Divine favour, and of what may be accomplished by sanctified zeal, courage, and energy, directed to one purpose-the progress of the Redeemer's kingdom.

Those who have been honoured with the position of directing the legislation and government of the Church in the past, have certainly shown a wise conservatism. While free from the charge of having made hasty experiments, they have, we think, escaped that fruitful source of error and mischief which attempts to fit the principles and methods of one age to the convictions and needs of another. They apprehended the fact that as the Church advanced in intelligence, wealth, and moral influence, it required and demanded a different treatment from that which was only suited to the formative period of its history. Instead, therefore, of following the example so charac

* From the first number of the "Canadian Methodist Magazine," January,

1875.

teristic of some of the Churches of the time, "of retiring on their centre," they give prominence to the Christian, rather than to the Priestly idea, and effected such changes as met the necessities of the Church. By utilizing its various gifts and talents, they gave it breadth and fulness, compactness and efficiency, and, above all, peace, so essential to prosperity. We are not surprised that the "new departure," or re-arrangement, should take place so quietly, or that there should be such unanimity of sentiment, both as to its necessity and its adaptation to the wants of the Church at this time. It was not the result of hastiness. The best minds of the Church have been engaged on it for years, and much prayer has been offered to God for Divine direction. It is true, the laity (that is of the Wesleyan section) were not asking for the privilege of sharing in the grave responsibility of directing the legislation and government of the Church; yet the ministry felt it could hardly justify itself in assuming the entire burden and labour of carrying out and bringing to maturity the various schemes of the Church's enterprise-which its increasing culture, wealth, and social position were demanding-while so much. talent and energy were to be found in the laity, which, if brought out and employed, would not only be a bond of union between the ministry and the membership, but would secure to the Church the large and more varied experience, the zeal and hearty co-operation, of the foremost men of the denomination. In this expectation they have not been disappointed.

As a Church Court, the General Conference is unique, both in its composition and in its functions. It comes under none of the theories of Church government of which we have read or heard. It is purely representative in its composition, both in reference to the ministry and membership. It has no ex-officio members; even its President is a representative of some Conference; while its business is almost entirely legislative. It differs from the Anglican Convocations of England, which are not representative, nor have they either legislative or executive power. Nor is it analogous to the Provincial Synod of the Anglican Church in Canada, for it has no House of Bishops. Unlike the Assemblies of the various Presbyterian bodies, the laymen are chosen irrespective of office, and it possesses no judicial authority. Nor does it find its counterpart in the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church of the United States. In its composition the laymen are equal in number to the ministry. It has no executive control over the Annual Conferences; nor has it either judicial or appellate jurisdiction. It is the most popular Church Court we know of, and furnishes a reply and a rebuke to those who are fond of speaking of the vassalage of the laity of the Methodist Church. The General Conference is the creation of the Annual Conferences and of the membership. It has grown out of the necessities which our success as a Church has entailed upon us. It is not so much the creation of a new power, as it is the employment of that directly which has hitherto, and for the most part, been applied indirectly, and adapting it to present requirements; furnishing another proof of the elasticity of the system, which can adapt itself to the changes incident to the expansion of the Church, without doing violence to time-honoured and well-tried principles.