Page images
PDF
EPUB

Improper conduct in our Discipline means a small offense below a crime; and though the preachers and private members may be expelled for that kind of offense when it is persisted in after repeated admonitions, yet no one but a bishop, not even a child or a slave, can be expelled for the first improper act of that character. And if a bishop be expelled he has no appeal.*

He also quotes approvingly from Coke and Asbury's notes on the Discipline, as, for example, the following, referring to the "stationing power" which the General Conference has given the episcopacy:

If ever it evidently betrays a spirit of tyranny or partiality, and this can be proved before the General Conference, the whole will be taken from it, and we pray God that in such case the power may be invested in other hands.†

He also remarks:

When it is considered that the very men, to wit, the traveling preachers, over whom the bishop exercises his power gave him that power; that they continue it in his hands; that they can reduce, limit, or transfer it into other hands whenever they see cause-there certainly can be no occasion for the vehement exclamations against the bishop's power which are frequently made by men of other churches and by a few misguided brethren of our own.‡

In the next General Conference Bishop Hedding's book was quoted a number of times to support the idea that the episcopacy was an office and not an order, and there is certainly reason to believe that Bishop Hedding, who was present, indorsed that interpretation.

* Hedding on Discipline, p. 12. Ibid., p. 16, Ibid., p. 13.

On the 2d of April, 1844, the Rev. Charles Elliott, D.D., finished his Life of Bishop Robert R. Roberts. Dr. Elliott was one of the great and scholarly men of his time. As professor and college president, editor of three of the Church papers, and delegate to nine General Conferences, he was competent to speak with authority as to the views of his Church.

In his Life of Bishop Roberts he refers to the episcopacy as an office.* He maintains that the service used in setting apart bishops is not absolutely essential, and that bishops have no higher order than presbyters, thus restating the views of Dickins, Emory, and others, and harmonizing with Conference action. He says:

The mere imposition of hands is of little importance, and could be very well dispensed with did the General Conference see fit. Besides, a separate consecration in addition to election has the appearance of favoring the sentiment that Methodist bishops are considered a distinct order of clergy, whereas they are of the same order as presbyters, that is, they are themselves presbyters to whom certain powers are committed. Still, there is scriptural precedent for the imposition of hands. Paul and Barnabas were separated to a particular work by imposition of hands and prayer. Acts xiv. . . . Perhaps in order to avoid the very appearance of an order of clergy superior to presbyters, as well as to preserve the complete oneness of the entire ministry, imposition of hands in appointing bishops had better be dispensed with; a mere certificate of office would fully answer every purpose provided for in Scripture and designed to be accomplished by the appointment of Methodist

*Life of Bishop Roberts, p. 169.

bishops. This is, however, a point not worth contending for.*

He also says:

Ordination in the Methodist Episcopal Church is presbyterial; that is, it is derived from and is under the control of the body of presbyters.†

Again Dr. Elliott says:

Methodist episcopacy recognizes these principles, is founded on them, and its practices correspond with them. It rejects what is called the distinct order of bishops, and resolves all its power into the body of the pastors and people, from whom it derives its authority, and to whom it is responsible for its proper exercise; and thus it well accords with the principles, the spirit, and the practice of the New Testament concerning Church government.‡

Speaking of the powers of bishops, he says:

The bishops are not members of the General Conference. They are not the delegates of any Annual Conference. They do not vote, neither do they debate. . . . They preside also in the Annual Conferences, and yet they are not members of any of them.§

Thus authority after authority, down to the General Conference of 1844, maintain that the episcopate carried with it nothing but delegated official powers, and that the bishops were presbyters.

*Life of Bishop Roberts, chap. viii, pp. 171, 172.

+ Ibid., p. 171.

Ibid., p. 174.

Ibid., p. 175.

CHAPTER IX.

THE GENERAL CONFERENCE OF 1844.

HE memorable General Conference of 1844 throws

THE

a strong light upon the nature of the episcopate and its relation to the highest representative body of

the Church.

On the second day of the session the address of the bishops was read by Bishop Soule.* As this paper was presented early in the session its expressions were not due to the discussion which took place later in the session, and, consequently, may be taken as the unprejudiced statement of the bishops' opinion of the views of the Church. First, they say:

The general itinerant superintendency, vitally connected, as it is believed to be, with the effective operation, if not with the very existence, of the whole itinerant system, cannot be too carefully examined, or too safely guarded. And we have no doubt but you will direct your inquiries into such channels as to ascertain whether there has been any departure from its essential principles or delinquency in the administration in carrying it into execution; and, in case of the detection of error, to apply such correction as the matter may require. There are several points in this system which are of primary importance, and on that account should be clearly understood. The office of a bishop or superintendent, according to our

* Dr. James Porter says the address was written by Bishop Soule, or, at least, that that was the understanding at the time.

ecclesiastical system, is almost exclusively executive; wisely limited in its powers, and guarded by such checks and responsibilities as can scarcely fail to secure the ministry and membership against any oppressive measures, even should these officers so far forget the sacred duties and obligations of their holy vocation as to aspire to be lords over God's heritage. So far from their being irresponsible in their office, they are amenable to the General Conference, not only for their moral conduct, and for the doctrines they teach, but also for the faithful administration of the government of the Church, according to the provisions of the Discipline, and for all decisions which they make on questions of ecclesiastical law. In all these cases this body has original jurisdiction, and may prosecute to final issue in expulsion, from which decision there is no appeal.

Then they speak of "what is involved in the superintendency as it is constituted in our Church,” as follows:

1. Confirming orders, by ordaining deacons and elders. We say confirming, because the orders are conferred by another body which is independent of the episcopal office both in its organization and action. This confirmation of orders or ordination is not by virtue of a distinct and higher order. For, with our great founder, we are convinced that bishops and presbyters are the same order in the Christian ministry. And this has been the sentiment of the Wesleyan Methodists from the beginning. But it is by virtue of an office constituted by the body of presbyters, for the better order of discipline, for the preservation of the unity of the Church, and for carrying on the work of God in the most effectual manner. The execution of this office is subject to two important restrictions which would be very irrelevant to prelacy or diocesan episcopacy, constituted on the basis of a distinct and superior order. The latter involves independent action in conferring orders, by virtue of authority inherent in, and exclusively appertaining to, the episcopacy. But the former is a delegated authority to confirm

« PreviousContinue »