The bishops and the supervisional system of the Methodist Episcopal church

Preface

Every now and then there comes a time when systems of civil government must be restudied and restated, and the same is true in regard to Church polity.

In the course of years the rush of events and absorption in other matters may distract attention from fundamental facts and principles. The old pass away and new generations may not know the history of the Church, and especially the organic principles which exerted themselves at th^ beginning and built up the ecclesiastical organization.

Thi^ough this lack of knowledge, the new generations are in danger of being governed by their own impulses or present desires, rather than by historic principles, and so serious mistakes may be made in legislation and in other forms of action. History having been forgotten or never known by the new getieration, constitutional principles may not be recognized and, in time, may be utterly overlooked and injury may result. Every new generation, therefore, needs to be taught, and the seniors need to recall and review what they have known.

The study of history may bring surprises, and the student may be compelled to modify former

PREFACE

views and to (Correct misconceptions, but the investigation will enable him to perceive the balance and harmony of the system.

In this age of laxity and of indifference to law and the lessons of the past, it is important for those in the Church to know its organic law and the present force of that law, for, even in the Church, people sometimes make trouble simply because they do not know the law or comprehend the genius of their ecclesiastical organization.

In the Methodist Episcopal Church the time has come when there is need for a restatement of fundamental facts and principles in regard to its episcopacy and its supervisional system.

Much of this history has been forgotten, but, ^restated, it will be interesting and illuminating, while the constitutional principles herein presented will, it is hoped, help to a correct understanding of the polity of the Church.

My books on ^'The Evolution of Episcopacy and Organic Methodism, '' and ^^The History of the Governing Conference in Methodism,'' have a relation to the subject of this work and may be regarded as companion volumes.

Thomas B. Neely.

Being unable to read the proofs on account of episcopal duty in a foreign land, we wish to acknowledge our indebtedness to the Reverend Doctor Richard J. Cooke, Book Editor of the Church, for his most valuable assistance in the proof-reading. T. B. N.

Contents

Chafteb Pagb

I. Ecclesiastical Roots, - _ . 9

II. The Beginnings of the Wesleyan System, - - - - - - - 15

Chapter I Ecclesiastical Eoots Chaptee I

ECCLESIASTICAL EOOTS

Like a tree, an ecclesiasticism grows from its roots. To trace its origin and primary relations it is necessary to go down to its roots, and to understand its development one must ascend from its roots.

As the strength of a tree depends largely upon the spread and grip of its roots, so the security of an ecclesiasticism depends upon its grasp on the fundamentals of its existence.

As a tree depends upon its roots which are buried out of sight, so that which is most essential in an ecclesiastical organization may not be that which is most conspicuous, but that which is hidden from the ordinary gaze.

The real source of life may be unseen, and, because unseen, may be forgotten by superficial observers, wh'o are interested only in the later developments which are in sight, just as one might limit his interest to the new shoots or recent branches of a tree, and fail to remember the buried roots to which the visible tree is related and which contribute so much to the life and vigor of the tree.

The visible ecclesiastical organism implies an invisible source of vitality, Just as a plant which we see above ground implies the unseen roots which work to produce and contribute nourishment to the visible portion 'of the plant which men behold and admire.

If there were no roots there would be no tree, and there must ever be a vital connection between the tree and its roots. So there must always be a connection between the visible ecclesiastical organism and its unseen roots.

Sever the trunk from the roots and, though the leaves may remain green for a little while, nevertheless the tree is sure to die. So, if the vital connection of an ecclesiasticism with its ecclesiastical roots is severed, it will likewise perish. The vital relation between the organism which is seen and the root-forces which are unseen must be preserved if the life is to be continued.

Tree cultivation that does not take into consideration the roots is sure to be a failure, and the attempt to develop a Church organism without regard to its root beginnings is unphilosophical and futile.

Still more disastrous is the effort to cut away the ecclesiasticism from the root forces and ideas upon which it has depended and must depend. The ecclesiastical form may remain, but it will be without vitality — a decaying and dead body.

Now and then ecclesiastical reformers disregard or deliberately cut away from the past. The ax is not only laid at the root of the tree, but it is used to cut away the tree from its roots,

ECCLESIASTICAL BOOTS

and tlie result is the death of the visible organization and of the roots from which the visible organism took its growth and drew its vitality.

The roots of a Church are close to its beginnings, and, because they may be out of sight or forgotten, so-called reformers, who may really desire improvement, are in danger of severing the ecclesiasticism from its vital roots. The ultimate result of such a course is injury and death to the body ecclesiastic.

No one can safely modify that which is seen without having regard for the unseen to which it is vitally related.

No one can wisely deal with the present who does not know the past. No one should attempt to change what is without knowing how it came to be what it is.

No one can understand a law who does not know the history of its making and the reasons that called it into existence, and no one should attempt to change a law or an ecclesiastical polity who does not know how and why it came into being. Moreover, no one can appreciate the polity of a Church who does not know its history. Only to those who know the beginnings is the beauty and wisdom of a system revealed.

The object of this writing is to enable those who read to go down below the present and find in the past some of the roots of our ecclesiasticism, so that the beginnings may be seen and the vital forces perceived and preserved. Then one may know the sources of what is seen and perceive what is vital and essential. Then one may know where the roots are and what they are, and avoid or prevent the severing of the ecclesiasticism from its sources of vital supply, and continue the living relation between the ecclesiastical tree and its roots.

CHAPTEE II

THE BEGINNINGS OF THE WESLEYAN

SYSTEM

Chapter II The Beginnings Of The Wesleyan

SYSTEM

The beginnings of the Wesleyan system of what is commonly called Methodistic ecclesiastical government carry us back to Oxford University and the ^'Holy Club,'^ as it was termed, and of which the Rev. John Wesley was the chief.

Here may be fomid the germ of many things which found their development in after years.

The departure of the "Wesleys for America loosened but did not break the bonds which bound together John Wesley and his associates, for they continued generally to look up to him.

On his return to England there was some change in the alignment, but he was still regarded as the inspirational center.

The moral and religious conditions of Great Britain created or presented a situation which such a devout and earnest mind as that of John Wesley could not ignore.

Religious indifference in the Churches, indolence and lack of spirituality among the average clergy, irreligion in society, infidelity in influential quarters, and superabounding vice and crime in all directions and among all classes, demanded a radical reformation.

The practical question was how to change these conditions.

The fundamental need was to supplant the dead formality by a spiritual conception of religion, and by getting into the hearts of the people a personal religious experience.

To accomplish this widespread evangelistic preaching was necessary, and Wesley and his associates went here and there preaching a new evangel which was the old gospel of Christ and of the New Testament times.

The keynote was a different pitch and the sermonic strain seemed different from that with which the ordinary clergyman and the average church-goer had been familiar.

One result was that pulpits of the Established Church were closed against Wesley and his coadjutors, and these ministers went to the people out in the fields or wherever they could gather an audience to hear them.

The people in large numbers were impressed, convinced, and converted, and a reformation of morals and manners and a revival of genuine religion spread among the populace and touched the higher classes of society.

With these new ideas as to religion there was noticeable a new and better life among the people generally.

It is to be noted that in the Wesleyan movement there was a ministry before there was a membership, or, in other words, a clergy before there was a laity.

BEGINNINGS OF WESLEYAN SYSTEM

This is an important point in the study of the initial form of the Methodist polity, and is the germ from which came the ecclesiastical tree.

In Methodism the ministry was chronologically first. There was a clergy before there was a laity, and this fact is a key to many things in the future system.

The Eeverend John Wesley, the Eeverend Charles Wesley and their coadjutors were prior to any organization, and began their work before they had a following.

This ministry went out to the people, many of whom, though formally connected with Churches, did not experience the power of vital religion, while it also went out to the populace that had no respect for the clergy and the Churches, and was indifferent to religion, or was steeped in ungodliness and in vice.

As a result of the preaching, the people were converted, and, being converted through the same agencies, they naturally gravitated toward each other, and at the same time were instinctively drawn to the Eeverend John Wesley, the great leader in this evangelical movement.

Thus, as these ministers went to the people, who gave them audience while they preached the simple and spiritual truths of New Testament Christianity, conversions followed and congregations were formed.

So the Wesleyan or Methodistic laity came into existence subsequently to the clergy, a most natural thing, but, at the same time, a fact of much

2 17 interest in studying the ecclesiastical evolution of Methodism.

Further, with a clergy and a laity, in relations as such, there hegan a new, though unpremeditated, ecclesiasticism that soon took its place among the great Churches of the world.

Chapter III Wesley's Headship Chapter III

THE HEADSHIP OF THE REVEREND JOHN

WESLEY

Acting with him from a very early moment, the Reverend John "Wesley had a body of ministers, some of whom were regularly ordained clergymen, while others were preachers who had not received ordination.

Just as it was with the members of the Oxford **Holy Club,'' so these ministers looked to the Reverend John Wesley as their natural leader and took directions from him.

The headship in early Methodism was in the Reverend John Wesley- First, informally, when Wesley inaugurated and directed the new religious movement; and, secondly, in a more formal sense, when he became the formal head of the new religious organization, by being its formally chosen head.

So the governmental system began with the headship of the Reverend John Wesley, of England, in the first half of the eighteenth century. When the converts, made through the efforts of Mr. Wesley, came together and associated themselves, at least in the expression of a desire for association and direction, they greatly needed a competent guide, and it was natural that they would think of Mr. Wesley as the proper person to take the leadership.

Mr. "Wesley tells how that eight or ten persons came to him in London *4n the latter end of the year 1739*^ and desired that **he would spend some time with them in prayer, and advise them how to flee from the wrath to come.'^

So *^he appointed a day when they might all come together ; which from thenceforward they did every week, namely, on Thursday, in the evening.''

^'This was the rise of the United Society, first in Europe, and then in America." (General Eules.)

So Mr. "Wesley was selected by the people, and solicited by the people, before he consented to become their head.

He did not assume or arrogate to himself the position. He was chosen and invited. It seemed providential, and, regarding it as a divine call, he consented to accept the responsibility- There was nothing of the nature of usurpation of power in it, but merely a yielding to their expressed desire.

So the ministers gathered around him and just as instinctively recognized him as their chief who was to direct their movements.

This was at the very beginning, and, for several years, before there was much formulation of legal requirements, but the ministers ^* served" Mr. Wesley *^as sons in the gospel." (Wesley's Works, Amer. ed.. Vol. V, pp. 220-222.)

WESLEY'S HEADSHIP

In a letter written by the Reverend John Wesley in 1780, he says :

**It pleased God by me to awaken first my brother, and then a few others, who severally desired of me, as a favor, that I would direct them in all things. After my return from Georgia, many were both awakened and converted to God. One and another of these desired to join with me as sons in the gospel, to be directed by me. I drew up a few plain rules (observe there was no Conference in being!) and permitted them to join me on these conditions.'' (Wesley's Works, Amer. ed., Vol. VII, p. 228.)

Wesley did not arrogate to himself this power to make rules, neither did he glory in his position as the head of a new ecclesiasticism.

Referring to this point, Mr. Wesley said : * * As it was merely in obedience to the providence of God and for the good of the people that I at first accepted this power, which I never sought — nay, a hundred times labored to throw off — so it is on the same considerations, not for profit, honor, or pleasure, that I use it this day. ... I did not seek any part of this power; it came upon me unawares. But when it was come, not daring to bury that talent, I used it to the best of my judgment; yet I never was fond of it. I always did, and do now, bear it as my burden — ^the burden which God lays upon me — and therefore I dare not lay it down." (Wesley's Works, Amer. ed., Vol. V, pp. 220-222.)

So the Wesleyan organization began under the headship of the Reverend John Wesley, to which position he was chosen at the beginning by both people and preachers.

Thus originally selected by the then existing constituency, he was subsequently tacitly but actually chosen by those who later came into the organization.

Those who came in later entered with the explicit understanding that they were to submit to "Wesley's personal government as it had been determined at the beginning and then was in force. The new members who joined from time to time accepted the organization as they found it, and acquiesced in the headship of Wesley, and the ministers who came into the movement did the same, and their acquiescence was equivalent to new votes, or a new election, to his responsible position.

All elected, or agreed, to conform to the system as it then existed and acknowledged Wesley as their chief, and thus they practically and continuously elected him to his supreme position of authority. The adhesion of each new member or minister was like a new vote for Wesley and his government, and the new votes or acts of acquiescence as preachers and people became parts of the organization showed their approval of Mr. Wesley and his methods and their free choice of him as their director-general.

So, as long as he lived, his authority was assented to and freely acknowledged by the ministry

WESLEY'S HEADSHIP

and the laity who joined at various times during the period of his long service covering more than a half a century- Chosen as he was at the beginning, and continuously, as the movement spread and gathered growing numbers, "Wesley was literally the head of the organization, as well as the religious movement. As the head, he thought. He was the thinker, the planner, and the director, whose word was obeyed.

In other words, Wesley was the law-maker, the law-interpreter, and the chief-executive. The government was concentrated in Wesley- In this one man, the legislative, the judicial, and the executive departments of the government were combined. He was a whole General Conference, which did everything by a unanimous vote on all questions, because the determination was left to him and he made the decision.

In 1743 he drew up ** General Rules'' for his societies. This was the first formulated code. Its principles were of remarkable breadth and in their details exceedingly practical.

The terms of membership were very liberal, as he said : ^ ^ There is only one condition previously required of those who desire admission into these societies — 'a desire to flee from the wrath to come, and to be saved from their sins.' "

Then he observes: *'But wherever this is really fixed in the soul it will be shown by its fruits.

'^It is therefore expected of all wlio continue therein that they shall continue to evidence their desire of salvation,

*^ First: By doing no harm, by avoiding evil of every kind, especially that which is most generally practiced. . . .

^^ Second: By doing good; by being in every kind merciful after their power; as they have opportunity doing good of every possible sort, and, as far as possible, to all men. . . .

^' Third: By attending upon all the ordinances of God.''

The specified details are suggestive and applicable to-day, still making good rules for holy living and for practical and applied Christianity- Wesley was a wise law-giver.

Wesley arranged the work, marking out the circuits, planning the operations, and determining various questions as they arose. He assigned the preachers to their several fields of labor, and, indeed, determined and directed everything, but doing so for the best interests of the work and after receiving the fullest possible information.

Wesley exercised great power, but he exerted his authority with great wisdom and consideration, and for the welfare of those he served and at the same time governed.

Methodism never had a better government, or a more successful administration, than it had under the Eeverend John Wesley. He was the absolute head, and yet he was not a despot, who had seized or usurped authority, but was the free

WESLEY'S HEADSHIP

choice of both members and ministers. He was the supreme government, but it was an intelligent, pious, and considerate government, which was itself governed by a desire to do God's will and to uplift the moral and religious life of the people.

Through Wesley's headship, it is to be observed, that from the very beginning the Wesleyan organization was a connectional system, in which, though the local society and the individual minister had their own separate and individual existence, all were interrelated and interdependent under a common and central authority, and the head center was the Eeverend John Wesley.

Chapter IV Wesley's Supervisional Methods Chapter IV

WESLEY'S SUPERVISIONAL METHODS

The ecclesiastical supervision in the early periods of Methodism was exceedingly thorough. It extended to every individual and in its requirements was strict and the spirit of more modern times might say it was severe.

If, however, there was a seeming severity, it was for the moral and religious protection of the organization, and the strictness was to restrain or eliminate the persistent wrongdoer, for the real spirit of the system was to encourage, aid, and strengthen those who were endeavoring to live right lives and who sought to be saved from spiritual failure.

It was a very significant entry Mr. Wesley at one time made in his Journal, where he said:

**The next week we endeavored to purge the society of all that did not walk according to the gospel. By this means we reduced the number of members to less than nineteen hundred. But number is an inconsiderable circumstance. May God increase them in faith and love !'' (Wesley's Journal, Works, Amer. ed.. Vol. Ill, p. 317.)

That meant the supervision of each and every member. It meant that the aim was not so much

BISHOPS AND SUPEKVISIONAL SYSTEM

quantity as quality- It meant that the test of quality was increase in Christian faith and love.

From the very beginning the superior and general supervision vested in Mr. Wesley.

At first this was so over the single society, and then, as other societies were added, his authority extended over all. In the same way it covered the few ministers at the beginning and later the whole body of the ministry, no matter how greatly the numbers increased.

Growing out of his relation to all he arranged the work and assigned the preachers to their several fields of labor.

In addition to these arrangements, he superintended every preacher and every society.

In exercising this general supervision, he did not, and could not locate himself in one place or limit himself, or be limited to a particular section of the field, but traveled far and wide, coming and going, crossing and recrossing his course, and extending it into new sections as he supervised generally the whole work.

"Wesley was not restricted to a locality, and could not be, for he directed the work generally, and was a' general supervisor. His duty of general supervision necessitated travel in many directions and to great distances, while the when and the where he would travel had to be determined by necessities as they arose.

In view of this superior and general supervision, Mr. Wesley could not be limited to one place or even be resident in one section. So he

WESLEY ^S SUPERVISIONAL METHODS

was found here or there as occasion seemed to require, and, it is plain, that, if he had been so restricted, he never could have accomplished the great work he performed.

In the very early days there was the preacher with Mr. Wesley as his superior. Then was organized the circuit, or charge, with its preaching places, and over the society was the preacher, through whom Mr. Wesley supervised the society.

Then came the suggestion that the society be subdivided into small bodies, which were called classes, and the placing of each subdivision under the care of a person called the class-leader.

This plan Mr. Wesley saw would make possible the most thorough scrutiny and supervision of every individual in the membership of the society, so that, as Wesley supervised through the preacher, the preacher could supervise each member through the leader.

Thus the General Rules, which were issued by Mr. Wesley, and which first appeared in 1743, said:

*^That it may the more easily be discerned whether they (the members) are indeed working out their own salvation, each society is divided into smaller companies, called Classes, according to their respective places of abode. There are about twelve persons in a Class, one of whom is styled The Leader. It is his duty :

**1. To see each person in his Class once a week at least: in order, (1) To inquire how his soul prospers. (2) To advise, reprove, comfort,

3 33 or exhort, as occasion may require. (3) To receive what he is willing to give toward the relief of the Preachers, Church, and poor.

*^2. To meet the Ministers and the Stewards of the Society once a week; in order, (1) To inform the Minister of any that are sick, or of any that walk disorderly and will not be reproved. (2) To pay the Stewards what he has received of his Class in the week preceding.*' (The General Eules.)

This was a remarkable, though simple arrangement, and provided for the most thorough oversight of each and every member, no matter how lowly or lofty the member might be.

Whether the member came to the meeting of the class or not, the leader was to keep in touch with him in the most effective manner. Thus it was the duty of the leader, at least once a week, to have a religious conversation with the member, and to inquire how the member's soul prospered, and then, having ascertained his spiritual condition, the leader was to give the member appropriate advice, to reprove him if necessary, or to comfort or exhort him as the occasion might require.

This the leader could do because there were only a few persons under his care.

By the head of the class supervising the few, and the preacher supervising the leaders, and Wesley supervising the preachers, there was a most thorough supervision down to the last member.

WESLEY'S SUPERVISIONAL METHODS

At the top was Wesley. Under him were the preachers. Under the preachers were the leaders. Under the leaders were the members. With such a system it was difficult for any member to be lost sight of.

Though supreme, Wesley did not govern without consideration of, or without consultation with, others.

In 1744 he began his custom of conferring with the preachers convened as a body. This assembly was called The Conference, and was composed of preachers and ordained ministers whom Mr. Wesley invited to meet with him.

Beginning with 1744, the Conference convened once a year, at comparatively regular intervals, and so became the yearly Conference of the preachers, and a fixed institution in Methodism.

With this Conference Mr. Wesley conferred though he made the decisions, and through it he announced the rules and largely directed the work.

Recognizing the need of more thorough local and subordinate supervision, for the work had steadily grown, as had also his duty as a director-general, Mr. Wesley determined to strengthen the local supervision.

He had superintended the societies directly, through the preachers, but his work as a general superintendent had greatly increased, as the societies and circuits grew, so that there was a growing necessity for a more sharply defined and stronger local supervision among and over the preachers of given localities, and over local operations, while lie would be freer to attend to liis own peculiar duty of general direction of the organization as a whole.

Eecognizing this local need, Mr. Wesley, instead of trying to do the local as well as the general work of supervision, decided to create a new office that would insure more efficient local, and yet at the same time, subordinate, supervision.

So he created the office of Assistant, and by this new office placed certain preachers over other preachers.

Mr. Wesley called them Assistants, for they were his Assistants, to assist him in effectively supervising other preachers and in directing the local work.

Mr. Wesley's definition of an Assistant was:

^'The preacher in each circuit who is appointed, from time to time, to take charge of the Societies and the other preachers therein.'' (English Minutes, 1749, Vol. I, p. 44.)

The preachers under the Assistants were called Helpers. They were the subordinate preachers, while the Assistants were their immediate superiors.

By this time the member of the Society was under the leader, the leader was under the preacher, the preacher was under the Assistant, and the Assistant was under the Eeverend John Wesley

Mr. Wesley was over all, and the supervisional system went down from him through the Confer-

WESLEY'S SUPER VISIONAL METHODS

ence, the Assistants, the preachers, and the Class Leaders, to the last member.

It was a simple but suprisingly thorough system of ecclesiastical supervision.

With the creation of Assistants, Mr. Wesley provided for stronger local supervision, and, through the Assistants, administered the local work, while he was freer to direct the entire movement, while he traveled throughout the whole country and gave general supervision to the whole work.

This was a manifest gain for the body as a whole, and for the general movement, for Mr. Wesley was more valuable as he went over the field generally than if his time and energy had been absorbed in the details of local operations.

Wesley was not limited to a locality, but was over all and everywhere, and, though a general superintendent, was touching all, directing locally through his Assistants, while their influence was felt through the preachers, the leaders, and the entire membership of the society or the circuit.

In this way early Methodism under the Reverend John Wesley had both superior and subordinate supervision, each locality being cared for by its local officers, while the entire field had the general supervision of an unlocalized general superintendent.

Mr. Wesley was the itinerant general superintendent, and he administered the local work through the Assistants — his Assistants — ^who were local officers and local superintendents.

In the meantime, Methodism, with its strong supervisional system, was becoming more and more eonnectional.

At this stage the supervisional system has reached the following development:

Over the members was the leader; over the leaders was the preacher; over the preachers was the assistant; and over the assistants was the chief superintendent, the Rev. John Wesley