The ark of the covenant ; shall our bishops have the veto power?

Contents

CHAPTER PAGE

Introduction v

I. Origin of the Constitution 1

Introduction

This note is not intended to be an attempt to analyze The Ark of the Covenant, written by the Rev. George A. Cooke, of the Wilmington Conference; neither is it my purpose to indorse fully all that is said in the book. No one who reads this book with care will hesitate to say that the author states his case with remarkable clearness and proves his points with convincing logic. We believe the book to be as timely as it is logical. It refreshes one's memory concerning the history of our Church and especially the history of the episcopacy. It will be sure to provoke discussion, and it is likely to affect church legislation in the future. Personally, we are very much inclined to believe that the author is right in his conclusions. Most of all, however, I wish to certify to the careful, studious faithfulness of the author, whom I have known for many years. Both his ability and integrity are beyond question, and he is a loyal Methodist. We bespeak for the little book a wide reading and we are not afraid to follow where his conclusions lead.

H. C. Jennings.

Chapter I

There is a written Constitution of the Methodist Episcopal Church. Some people do not seem to know it. There are Methodist ministers, some of them high in authority, who utterly ignore the Constitution of the Church. The legitimate inference is that they do not know what it is. If they know what it is and violate it with malice prepense, there is something more serious than ignorance the matter with them.

The Constitution of the Church is the foundation of all legitimate authority in the Church. It is the source of authority for the existence and work of the Quarterly Conference, the Annual Conference, and the General Conference. The General Conference is the chief lawmaking and governing body in the Church; but the General Conference derives its right to be and all its lawmaking and governing functions from the Constitution; it is supreme only within the limits prescribed by the Constitution. The authority of bishops

l and of all inferior officers of the Church is derived from the Constitution of the Church. If this is true — and it is true — then the Constitution contains the foundation principles of the Church. To change the figure of speech, the Constitution is the thorax of the Church; it contains and protects the vital organs of the Church.

This is a profound as well as a vital subject. We must proceed carefully in our reasoning, so as to clear up every phase of the problem. We must go back to the origin of the Constitution, in order to understand it. To rightly interpret the past requires the caution of the historian, the discrimination of the scientist, and the imagination of the poet. The historic imagination is essential to a correct philosophy of history. The writer is anxious to reach every Methodist minister on the continent. He desires all to understand the subject, so that they may intelligently grapple with the evils that threaten the speedy overthrow of the Church. It is quite essential to trace the origin of our Constitution.

There was a time in the ear ly- history of our Church when there was no written Constitution. The Methodist Episcopal Church was organized at the famous "Christmas Conference" of 1784, which met in Baltimore on December 24, of that year. The story of that Conference is thrilling with excitement. The Revolutionary War, the most dramatic and the most beneficent war ever prosecuted, had dragged its weary length to a glorious consummation at Yorktown, Virginia, where the proud Cornwallis surrendered to the redoubtable Washington. That was on October 19, 1781. The independence of the United States of America was not fully recognized by England and the nations of Europe until September 3, 1783, when the Treaty of Paris was signed.

How about the little band of Methodists? They had come through the war, in spite of much hardship and persecution. Francis Asbury, who came to America in 1771 as an "assistant" to Mr. Wesley, had kept a watchful eye on the scattered sheep in the wilderness, and had attended to their needs as best he could. Asbury was one of Wesley's "local" preachers. In the year 1784 he was the nominal head of about eighty local preachers — itinerant circuit riders. The statistics give about fourteen thousand souls gathered into the societies.

4 THE AEK OF THE COVENANT

The preachers were heroic men, called of God to the work of holy ministry ; but none of them had been ordained of men and given ecclesiastical authority to administer the sacraments. They earnestly besought John Wesley to meet their need in this respect. They were his "sons in the gospel," and they had sworn allegiance to his doctrines and his discipline. Mr. Wesley recognized that the providential hour had come for him to exercise an authority he had never used. He rose to the emergency like a priestly prophet of the Almighty. He set apart Thomas Coke, LL.D., a presbyter of the Church of England, as superintendent of the Methodist work in America. He believed he had a right to do it ; Dr. Coke believed he had a right to do it, and the Methodists in America believed he had a right to do it. He had a right to do it. The moss-grown hierarchy of the Church of England questioned his right and threw suspicion over the "legitimacy" of the consecration. But the matter was out of their hands. Bishop Harris well says : "In this emergency the Methodists in America sought the advice and assistance of Mr. Wesley, and in response he declared that his scruples were now at an end, and that he conceived himself at perfect liberty to exercise that right which he doubted not God had given him. He deemed it a fitting opportunity to relinquish the power he had hitherto exercised in America, and to provide for the organization of an Episcopal Church which should be as independent of the English hierarchy as the country was of the English crown." Mr. Wesley had all the rights in the case, moral and legal, and he did not need to consult anyone in the premises. He was, under God, the creator and organizer of the Methodist societies. He alone had authority to direct in the organization of the work in America. Whatever claim or right he had in America he voluntarily relinquished. He gave to the new Church in the New World the benefit of his wisdom, his indorsement, and his blessing. He commissioned Dr. Coke to supervise the organization of the American Church. Coke and Asbury first met in Barrett's Chapel, on the sacred soil of Delaware. It was arranged that there should be a Conference of all the preachers in Baltimore, Maryland, by Christmas. The intrepid Garretson undertook the task of notifying the preachers who were scattered from New York to Georgia. He set

6 THE AKK OF THE COVENANT

forth on his faithful horse and succeeded in gathering sixty-four preachers to the Conference. At that time and place the Methodist Episcopal Church was born, created, or organized, as one may choose to call it. The official Minutes of the Conference say, "At this Conference we formed ourselves into an independent Church, and, following the counsel of Mr. Wesley, we thought it best to become an Episcopal Church, making the Episcopal office elective, and the elected superintendent amenable to the body of ministers and preachers."

It was left to each Annual Conference to enact its own legislation, as it was not practicable for all the preachers to meet every year. It was soon discovered that the Annual Conferences were enacting laws in conflict with one another. If this were allowed to continue the bond of connection would soon be broken, and the Church would cease to have real unity. It was decided by the Conferences that there must be a General Conference to make laws for the whole connection. The first General Conference met in 1792. All the preachers in full connection with Annual Conferences were members of the General Conference. This rule obtained until 1804, when it was enacted that only preachers who had traveled for four years and were in full connection with the Conference were eligible to membership in that body. When the preachers met in General Conference they were free to make any law they chose to make. There was no authority over them and no written Constitution to limit their power. They did not represent the Annual Conferences, for they were the Annual Conferences. This point cannot be too carefully noted by those* who would understand the real significance of the written Constitution we now have.

As the Conference increased in numbers there was much jealousy and consequent dissatisfaction growing out of the fact that the large Conferences, which were more favorably located, greatly outnumbered the others at these quadrennial gatherings. Of the one hundred and twelve who attended the General Conference held at Baltimore in 1804, there were seventy from the Baltimore and Philadelphia Conferences. On account of this situation there was a growing demand for a delegated General Conference, with restricted powers. This demand found expression in a memorial from the New York Conference at its session of 1807. There are so many points of historic interest in this memorial that it should be read by every minister and layman. There were at that time seven Annual Conferences, namely, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York, Virginia, New England, South Carolina, and Western. The memorial was as follows:

Veby Deab Bbethren: We are as one of the seven eyes of the great and increasing body of the Methodist Episcopal Church in these United States, which is composed of about five hundred traveling, and about two thousand local preachers, together with upward of one hundred and forty thousand members; these, with our numerous congregations and families, spread over an extent of country more than two thousand miles from one end to the other, amounting, in all probability, to more than one million of souls, which are, directly or remotely, under our pastoral oversight and ministerial charge, should engage our most sacred attention, and should call into exertion all the wisdom and talents we are possessed of, to perpetuate the unity and prosperity of the whole connection, and to establish such regulations, rules, and forms of government, as may, by the blessing of God in Jesus Christ, promote that cause of religion which is more precious to us than riches, honor, or life itself, and be conducive to the salvation of souls, among the generations yet unborn. The fields are white unto harvest before us, and the opening prospect of the great day of glory brightens continually in our view, and we are looking forward with hopeful expectations for the universal spread of scriptural truth and holiness over the habitable globe. Brethren, for what have we labored, for what have we suffered, for what have we borne the reproach of Christ, with much long-suffering, with tears and sorrow, but to serve the great end and eternal purpose of the grace of God, in the present and everlasting felicity of immortal souls?

When we take a serious and impartial view of this important subject, and consider the extent of our connection, the number of our preachers, the great inconvenience, expense, and loss of time, that must necessarily result from our present regulations relative to our General Conference, we are deeply impressed with a thorough conviction that a representative or delegated General Conference, composed of a specific number, on principles of equal representation, from the several Annual Conferences, would be much more conducive to the prosperity and general unity of the whole body than the present indefinite and numerous body of ministers, collected together unequally from the various Conferences, to the great inconvenience of the ministry and injury of the work of God. "We therefore present unto you this memorial, requesting that you will adopt the principle of an equal representation from the Annual Conferences, to form in future a delegated General Conference, and that you will establish such rules and regulations as are necessary to carry the same into effect.

As we are persuaded that our brethren in general, from a view of the situation and circumstances of the connection, must be convinced, upon mature and impartial reflection, of the propriety and necessity of the measure, we forbear to enumerate the various reasons and arguments which might be urged in support of it. But we do hereby instruct, advise, and request every member who shall go from our Conference to the General

Conference, to urge, if necessary, every reason and argument in favor of the principle, and to use all their Christian influence to have the same adopted and carried into effect.

And we also shall and do invite and request our brethren in the several Annual Conferences, which are to sit between this and the General Conference, to join and unite with us in the subject-matter of this memorial. We do hereby candidly and openly express our opinion and wish, with the firmest attachment to the unity and prosperity of the connection; hoping and praying that our Chief Shepherd and Bishop of our souls, the Lord Jesus Christ, may direct you in all wisdom, righteousness, brotherly love, and Christian unity.

We are, dear brethren, in the bonds of gospel ties, most affectionately yours.

By order and in behalf of the New York Conference, without a dissenting vote,

Francis Ward, Secretary.

May the 7th, 1807.

This memorial furnishes invaluable and conclusive proof of the point we are trying to make clear — that there were no constitutional restrictions on the powers of the General Conference from the organization of the Church in 1784 to the Conference of 1808, when constitutional provision was made for a delegated General Conference, with limitations upon its powers of legislation.

CHAPTER II The Contest for a Constitution

The memorial of the New York Conference, above referred to, was concurred in by three other Conferences* — the New England, the South Carolina, and the Western — which showed that there was a strong sentiment in its favor. Upon the organization of the General Conference of 1808 the memorial was read, and was referred to a committee of two members from each Annual Conference, chosen by the members present from each Annual Conference from among themselves. The committee thus consisted of fourteen members and was composed of the following preachers: Philadelphia Conference, John McClaskey, Thomas Ware; Baltimore Conference, Stephen G. Roszel, Nelson Reed; New York Conference, Ezekiel Cooper, John Wilson ; New England Conference, George Pickering, Joshua Soule; Western Conference, William McKendree, William Burke; Virginia Conference, Philip Bruce, Jesse Lee; South

Carolina Conference, William Phoebus, Josiah Eandle. We reproduce the names of the committee for two reasons: (1) it was the most important committee ever created by a General Conference; (2) several of the men who composed the committee afterward became famous in the annals of Methodism. He must be dull indeed who does not recognize that the work of that committee was of vast importance in the future development of our great Church.

Let no one imagine there was an easy task before that committee. The memorial of the New York Conference was approved by the four Conferences that were situated the farthest from Baltimore. The Baltimore, the Philadelphia, and the Virginia Conferences failed to approve of the plan for a delegated General Conference, for the very cogent reason that they would lose representation in such a Conference. Those were the three largest Conferences and could easily outnumber the others in any test. Some may see in that the evidence of unconscious carnality working itself out, even at that early date. Bishop Asbury, however, strongly favored the New York memorial. His great influence at that time helped mightily in turning the tide of battle toward the larger vision. Bishops were at that time members of the General Conference, and as such could introduce motions and participate in debate. That right was taken from them by the Constitution which created the delegated Conference. Such has been the uniform construction of the Constitution by its ablest expounders. The appointment of the committee was upon the motion of Bishop Asbury "that the committee be formed of an equal number from each Annual Conference." This secured a majority of the Committee in favor of the New York proposition. The committee proceeded carefully with its work, realizing its vast importance to the Church. A subcommittee of three was appointed, consisting of Ezekiel Cooper, Joshua Soule, and Philip Bruce. They each decided to draw up a plan of government for the proposed delegated General Conference. The plan of Joshua Soule, of New England, was finally recommended by the committee. Soule had a mind whose grasp was strong on the fundamental principles of government. If Asbury was the Washington of early Methodism, Soule was its Jefferson.

The committee was appointed on May 9 and brought in its report on May 16 after one week of careful and prayerful deliberation. The report of the committee was as follows:

Whereas, It is of the greatest importance that the doctrine, form of government, and general rules of the United Societies in America be preserved sacred and inviolable; and

Whereas, Every prudent measure should be taken to preserve, strengthen, and perpetuate the union of the connection; therefore your Committee, upon mature deliberation, have thought it advisable that the third section of the form of Discipline shall be as follows:

SECTION III Of the General Confeeence

1. The General Conference shall be composed of delegates from the Annual Conferences.

2. The delegates shall be chosen by ballot without debate, in the Annual Conferences respectively, in the last meeting of the Conference previous to the sitting of the General Conference.

3. Each Annual Conference respectively shall have a right to send seven elders, members of their Conference, as delegates to the General Conference.

4. Each Annual Conference shall have a right to send one delegate in addition to the seven for every ten members belonging to such Conference, over and above fifty; so that if there are sixty members, they shall send eight; if seventy, they shall send nine; and so on in proportion.

5. The General Conference shall meet on the first day of May, in the year of our Lord 1812; and thenceforward on the first day of May, once in four years perpetually, at such place or places as shall be fixed on by the General Conference from time to time.

6. At all times when the General Conference is met it shall take two thirds of the whole number of delegates to form a quorum.

7. One of the general superintendents shall preside in the General Conference; but in case no general superintendent be present, the General Conference shall choose a president pro tempore.

8. The General Conference shall have full powers to make rules, regulations, and canons for our Church under the following limitations and restrictions:

The General Conference shall not revoke, alter, or change our Articles of religion, nor establish any new standards or rules of doctrine contrary to our present existing and established standards of doctrine.

They shall not lessen the number of seven delegates from each Annual Conference nor allow a greater number from any Annual Conference than is provided in the fourth paragraph of this section.

They shall not change nor alter any part or rule of our government, so as to do away episcopacy, or to destroy the plan of our itinerant general superintendency.

They shall not revoke or change the General Rules of the United Societies.

They shall not do away the privileges of our ministers or preachers of trial by a committee, and of an appeal; neither shall they do away the privileges of our members of trial before the society or by a committee, and of an appeal.

Neither shall they appropriate the produce of the Book Concern or of the Charter Fund to any purpose other than for the benefit of the traveling, superannuated, supernumerary, and worn-out preachers, their wives, widows, and children.

Provided, Nevertheless, that upon the joint recommendation of all the Annual Conferences, then a majority of two thirds of the General Conference succeeding shall suffice to alter any of the above restrictions.

The plan was the plan of Joshua Soule, of the New England Conference. It was not agreed to in its details by Ezekiel Cooper, of New York. However, it was now before the Conference. It was freely discussed in all its phases. Dr. Nathan Bangs, the great historian of Methodism, who published his history of the Methodist Episcopal Church in 1845, says in regard to the report of this committee, which was really the first draft of a Constitution for the Church: "After discussing this report for a whole day, it was, by a vote of the Conference, postponed until the reconsideration of the question respecting the manner in which the presiding elders should thereafter be appointed. After it was decided that they should continue to be appointed as heretofore by the bishops, on Wednesday the 18th, the consideration of the report was resumed, and after some debate the entire report was, as before stated, rejected by a majority of seven votes.

"The rejection of this report was a source of much regret and disappointment to most of the older preachers who were present, and particularly to Bishop Asbury, as they clearly saw the necessity of adopting some plan by which the doctrines of the Church, its form of government, and its general rules might be preserved from deterioration, and also by which a more equal representation from the several Annual Conferences should be secured" (Vol. II, page 231.)

Dr. H. M. Du Bose, of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, has treated this period quite thoroughly in his Life of Joshua Soule. He says, "The draft made by Cooper has not been preserved to us in its entirety, but it is understood that it differed from the plan of Soule chiefly in its treatment of the episcopacy." He really favored a districted episcopacy with a separate bishop for each Conference. He was a great and a good man, and no doubt thought he would stand a good show of election to the episcopacy in case his theory should prevail.

Jesse Lee, of the Virginia Conference, who at an earlier date was the apostle of Methodism to New England, was a member of the famous committee above referred to. He was the original proposer of a delegated General Conference. Now he opposed the resolutions on the ground that the big Conferences — the Virginia, the Baltimore, and the Philadelphia — would lose influence by it. He also contended that delegates should be chosen by seniority. "With this contention he, with others, was able to maintain the debate during practically the entire day."

"But notwithstanding this initial success, the adoption of the Constitution was by no means assured. On Wednesday afternoon it was moved 'that the vote on the first resolution of the committee of fourteen be taken by ballot.' That resolution was: 'The General Conference shall be composed of delegates from the Annual Conferences.' When the ballots were counted, it was found that the measure was lost by a slender majority of seven votes. The result was, however, decisive; the Constitution was lost. The consequences came near being serious. Great excitement prevailed, for the Constitutionalists attributed their defeat to the three Central Conferences, and chiefly to the Baltimore and Philadelphia contingents. 'The New England delegates asked leave of absence/ says Bishop McTyeire, who undoubtedly received this information from the lips of Bishop Soule himself. The Western delegates threatened to ride awav to their circuits, while others wept or sat with shadowed faces contemplating what seemed the end of connectional Methodism. The spirit of Soule was sad, but his lips spake no word while he awaited the final outcome. Bishops Asbury and McKendree, after much persuasion, prevailed on the dissatisfied delegates to remain over a day to see if an understanding could not be reached" (Life of Soule, pp. 82, 83).

After the lapse of four days, on Monday, May 23, the Conference was nearing its adjournment and it became necessary to fix the time and place of the meeting of the next General Conference. For the purpose of reintroducing the question of a Constitution it was moved that they first determine who should compose the next General Conference. Enoch George, afterward a Bishop, moved "that the General Conference shall be composed of one member for every five members of each Annual Conference," and the motion carried by a decisive majority. This allowed

20 THE AEK OF THE COVENANT

of a larger representation than was provided for in the original report and satisfied the larger Conferences. Joshua Soule then moved that the method of selecting delegates in the Annual Conferences should be "either by seniority or choice." This silenced the opposition of Jesse Lee and gained his help for future stages of the contest.

From that point the current of legislation ran smoothly, and the remainder of the original Constitution as drafted by Joshua Soule was adopted with only minor verbal changes.

The adoption of this Constitution was a remarkable achievement. The framers of it seemed to grasp the great historic significance of the Methodist movement. They realized that upon them rested the responsibility of binding the vital things of the Church with bands of steel. It must be done then and there, and they were the men who must do it. Under the leadership of right-thinking, forwardlooking men like Asbury, McKendree, Soule, Lee, Pickering, Roszel, and George, that body of consecrated men rose magnificently to the occasion and enacted what they conceived to be the will of God into the legislation of the

Church. They gave to the Church a rockribbed, ironclad Constitution that has enabled it to outride the storms of a century.

Dr. Charles Elliott, one of the giants of a former generation, said of the Constitution as adopted in 1808: "To a very considerable extent we owe to Bishop Soule the restrictive regulations, or, rather, the Constitution of the Methodist Episcopal Church, which exhibits a degree of wisdom and prudent foresight that characterizes men of the first mental powers. In fact, those who know Bishop Soule would expect from him the wise deliberation necessary to produce such a measure."

Bishop McTyeire, of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, speaks in high praise of the work of Joshua Soule in connection with the formation of this Constitution. He says : "One obvious advantage of Mr. Soule's theory will be accepted as an offset to many disadvantages : it promotes connectionalism ; it ties and bands the churches and Conferences together. He succeeded in getting adopted the practice and rule which still holds in the Church — of being scarce of bishops, making but few, and giving them a wide and equal interest in all the Conferences and all the

Conferences an equal interest in them. It was a breadth of mission which suited well his own elevated nature and ample powers when in time he was called to it." Our good friends of the Southern branch may be pardoned for their failure to observe that the Constitution made no provision for the seceding procedure that was carried out in 1844. Of course we of the North understand that a "condition" as well as a "theory" arose at that time. The condition had to be met, even though the theory had to suffer for the time being.

The Rev. James Dixon, D.D., an English Wesleyan preacher of great eloquence and power, who came as a fraternal delegate to the General Conference of 1848, was a great admirer of our Constitution. His words, spoken so long ago, can be appreciated by us. He says: "Here, then, we have the Magna Charta of Methodism in the States. This document indicates the good sense and the diligent forethought of those who framed it. We see from it that the American Methodists are no revolutionists, and that they desire to escape such a catastrophe. The legislative power [of the General Conference] is not at liberty to alter anything deemed fundamental.

This limits the functions of the assembled ministers within what may be considered a settled and fully recognized constitution. This Constitution supposes various points as already settled, to which all agree, and which are not to be disturbed. The doctrines of the Church are among these fundamental principles. Here innovation generally begins when Churches decline. The loss of vital religion always causes the truths of the evangelical system to become tasteless. The age and circumstances favor this sort of adventurous spirit. It must consequently be considered a wise arrangement, that the great truths of the Evangelical system embodied in their articles of religion are not to be altered."

At the General Conference of 1908, held in Baltimore, there was a centennial celebration of the founding of the Constitution of the Church. At that time Bishop Charles W. Smith, D.D., one of the ablest constitutional interpreters of the Church, read a strong paper on "The Constitution of the Methodist Episcopal Church." He used these words: "When, therefore, we discuss the Constitution as it is, we are considering the document substantially as it came from the hands of its framers. This is a remarkable fact, and shows the wisdom and foresight of the fathers and the conservatism of their sons."

Nathan Bangs, the philosophical historian and the ecclesiastical statesman of the middle period of Methodism, says :

"The unanimity with which these restrictive regulations were adopted by the Conference shows the deep sense which was generally felt of the propriety of limiting the powers of the General Conference, so as to secure forever the essential doctrines of Christianity from all encroachments, as well as those rules of moral conduct, so succinctly and precisely embodied in the General Rules, and also to prevent the appropriation of the available funds of the Church from being diverted to other objects than those for which they had been established. Call these rules, therefore, restrictive regulations, or a Constitution of the Church — for we contend not about names merely — they have ever since been considered as sacredly binding upon all succeeding General Conferences, limiting them in all their legislative acts, and prohibiting them from making inroads upon the doctrines, General Rules, and government of the Church.