Conference rights : or, Governing principles of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, as found in the history, legislation, and administration of that church

Front matter

OR,

GOVERNING PRINCIPLES

OP THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH, AS POUND IN THE HISTORY, LEGISLATION, AND ADMIN- ISTRATION OP THE CHURCH.

CHAPTER I. Episcopacy and Church Government

CHURCH government is not of divine origin in the sense that God has prescribed any specific form. The development of the form has been providential— Providence adapting the form to the demands of the times. "As to the external form of the Church, and the mode of governing it, neither Christ himself nor his apostles gave any express precepts." l The historical fact as to form is admirably stated by a modern writer, who is a prominent clergyman of the Church of England:

The large variations of form in one age as compared with another tend to show that the form was meant to be elastic, and that the importance which has frequently been attached to fixity of form has been exaggerated. That there should be form of some kind is not only inevitable but desirable. But

the fact of the necessity and desirability of form is no proof of the necessity of this or that particular form; nor is the fact that a particular form was good for a particular age a proof that it is also good for another age. The history of the organization of Christianity has been in reality the history of successive readjustment of form to altered circumstances. 2

For tbe edification of his Church, under whatever form and name it might exist, Christ appointed a

1 Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History, vol. i., p. 59.

2 The Organization of the Early Christian Churches, by Edwin Hatch, INI. A., D.D., fourth ed., p. 218.

2 CONFEEENCE EIGHTS.

ministry, which, in apostolic and post-apo^tolic times, had various functions and received various names, and these varied in relation to the environments of their own historical development. Like the external form of the Church, the ministry, in relation to the historic Church, has been determined in its modes of operation and grades and names by the conditions to be adjusted, rather than by any direct divine appointment. This fact is as true in relation to its origin as to its historic development. Schaff gives a correct account of the ministry as it existed from the time of its origin to the first part of the second century, in the following words:

We proceed to the officers of local congregations. These are of two kinds: presbyters, or bishops; and. deacons, or helpers. The terms presbyter (or elder) and bishop

(or overseer, superintendent) denote in the New Testament one and the same office, with this difference only, that the first is borrowed from the synagogue, the second from the Greek communities; and that the one signifies the dignity, the other the duty. The identity of these officers is very evident from the following facts:

(a) They appear always as a plurality or as a college in one and the same congregation, even in smaller cities, as Philippi.

(&) The same officers of the church of Ephesus are alternately called presbyters and bishops.

(c) Paul sends greetings to the " bishops " and " deacons " of Philippi, but omits the presbyters because they are included in the first term ; as also the plural indicates.

(d) In the pastoral epistles, when Paul intends to give the qualification for all church officers, he again mentions only two, bishops and deacons, but uses the term presbyter afterwards for bishop. Peter urges the "presbyters" "to feed the flock of God," and to fulfill the office of bishops with disinterested devotion, and without "lording it over the charge allotted to them."

(e) The interchange of terms continued in use to the close of the first century, as is evident from the epistle of Clement of Rome (about 95), and still lingered toward the close of the second. 1

If the terms presbyter and bishop are used interchangeably in the New Testament, why are both employed? This question is answered as to the origin of the office of elder as follows:

The simple machinery of the primitive Church had just been completed at Jerusalem. A new office had been created, that of elders. (Acts xi. 30.) It is of great moment to us to determine exactly its origin and its functions; only by this means can we judge fairly the pretensions of the various ecclesiastical systems. The office of elder was not without precedent. We find it in those numerous synagogues in which the Jews, distant from Jerusalem, met on the Sabbath to read the Scriptures. Each one was governed by a sort of senate or council, whose authority was much like that of the judges appointed in each town on the conquest of the promised land. (Deut. xvi. 18.) The council of the synagogue had a president,

called the ruler of the synagogue, or master, or rabbi; [but he] had no peculiar dignity which raised him above his colleagues in the hierarchy. He was the first among his peers, primus inter pares. Unquestionable pacsages prove that the same synagogue often had several rulers or presidents. All the elders probably occupied the position in turn. Such an organization was e-sentially democratic; it presents no analogy with the Levitical priesthood, or the episcopacy of the third century.2

In addition tp this statement, Pressens6 gives the origin of elder and bishop in these words: "At Jerusalem, as in all the churches of Jewish origin, elders alone were known. The name bishop appears only in the churches of Greek origin." 3 As already

1 History of the Christian Church, by Schaff, vol. i., pp. 491-493. Consult also Light root, The Epistles of St. Paul— Philippians, ed. 1888, pp. 96-98; History of the Reformation, by Burnett, vol. i., p. 585.

s Early Years of Christianity: Apostolic Era, by Pressensg, pp. 83-85.

*Ibid., p. 86. See also The Epistles of St. Paul, by Lightfoot, ed. 1888, pp. 193-195.

* CONFERENCE EIGHTS.

quoted, Sckaff says elder " is borrowed from the synagogue," and bishop "from the Greek communities." He also says that elder " signifies the dignity," and bishop " the duty." Lord King says:

The definition of a presbyter may be this: a person in holy order.-?, having thereby an inherent right to perform the whole office of a bishop; but being possessed of no place or parish, not actually discharging it without the permission and consent of the bishop of a place or parish. So a presbyter had the

same power with a bishop whom he assisted in his cure; yet being not the bishop or minister "of that cure, he could not then perform any parts of his pastoral office without the permission of the bishop thereof.1

The authorities just quoted give the following reasons why presbyter and bishop are both used in the New Testament, in the face of the fact that they are employed interchangeably:

1. "Presbyter" is of Jewish origin, and is borrowed from the service of the synagogue; while " bishop " is of Greek origin, having been borrowed from the Greek communities, and is closely connected with their presidents of councils or assemblies.

2. Elder signifies the dignity, and bishop the duty or service.

3. According to Lord King, a bishop is one who is in charge of a church; and an elder is one who has " an inherent right to perform the whole office of a bishop," but is in charge of no parish where he can discharge the duties of his office, only as he assists the bishop in his work. So soon as the elder takes charge of a parish, he is the equal of a bishop — he is a bishop.

i Primitive Church, ed. 1851, pp. 61, 62.

The identity of a presbyter and bishop was kept up through the first and a part of the second century. During this time no distinctions were made between them save those just indicated. On this point Pressense" says:

Episcopal pretensions have frequently been founded on the passages in Paul's epistles where the word bishop occurs; but an attentive examination of the texts shows that the two words, elder and bishop, are used interchangeably, and that in the language of Taul they are synonymous, representing one and the same office. This identity of the office of bish-

op with that of elder is so very apparent in the New Testament that it was admitted by the whole ancient Church, even at the time of the rise of the episcopate, properly so called. "The elder is identical with the bishop," said St. Jerome.1

It is important to note in this connection how, since presbyters and bishops were the same in apostolic times, and for more than a hundred years after, the bishop was singled out from the presbyters, and given a distinct place in the ministry, with superior powers and duties. This change was not brought about by Christ and his apostles. It had an unpretentious beginning, and is of human origin and slow growth. It is difficult to say just when the change was introduced. Neander gives one of the first instances, perhaps, in which a distinction is made between elder and bishop. He says:

What we find existing in the second century enables us to infer, respecting the preceding times, that soon after the apostolic age the standing office of president of the presbytery must have been formed; which president, as having preeminently the oversight over all, was designated by the special name of episcopos, and thus distinguished from the other presbyters.

lApostolic Era, pp. 347, 348.

6 CONFEltENCE RIGHTS.

Thus the name came at length to be applied exclusively to this

presbyter.1

On the same point Lightfoot says:

The unergency which consolidated the episcopal form of government is correctly and forcibly stated. It was remarked long a.^o by Jerome that before factions were introduced into religion by the prompting of the devil the churches were governed by a council of elders; but as soon as each man began to consider those whom he had baptized to belong to himself, and not to Christ, it was decided throughout the world that one elected from among the elders should be placed over the rest, so that the care of the Church should devolve on him, and the seeds of schism be removed. And again, in another passage, he writes to the same effect. When afterwards one presbyter was elected that he might be placed over the rest, this was done as a remedy against schism, that each man might not drag to himself, and thus break up, the Church of Christ. To the dissensions of Jew and Gentile converts, and to the disputes of Gnostic false teachers, the development of episcopacy may be mainly ascribed.2 ,

The following statement will throw light on the above distinction as given to the president of the body of elders:

The apostles originally appointed men to superintend the spiritual, and occasionally oven the seen ar, wants of the churches, who wore ordinarily called elders,

from their age; sometimes overseers (bishops), from their office. They are also said to preside, . never . .

to rule, which has far too despotic a sound.3

Farrar nays the distinction was introduced gradually. "By the time of Ireiiseus the distinction between 'bishop' and 'presbyter,' which is not found

i History of the Christian Religion and Church, eleventh American edition, vol. i., p. 190.

2 The Epistles of St. Pnul: Philippians, ed. 1888, p. 206. •McClhitock and Strong's Cyclopedia, vol. i., p. 818.

EPISCOPACY AND CHUKCH GOVERNMENT. 7

in the writings of the New Testament, had been gradually introduced." 1

Toward the close of the second century Irenaeus makes a slight distinction between bishop and presbyter, but it was a distinction of no special significance. Jerome, in giving an account of the change from government " by the common council," on account of heresies and divisions, states that one of the presbyters became president, with authority "to watch over the church and suppress schisms."2 This is an increase of power over the scriptural president. It is an office with authority to rule; but while this enlarged power of the president was made, there was an important check on the abuse of power; for as late as the middle of the third century the church of Alexandria, through the twelve elders, elected one of their number president.3 This distinction of election, and grant of power superior to the other elders, was distinguished by the term bishop, who was regarded as superior only by way of eminence, for he was still regarded as primus inter pares.4"

Early in the history of the Christian Church heresy developed, and caused dissensions which in some places at times threatened the destruction of the Church. In opposition to this, and as a protective measure, there was developed the idea of unity, the chief strength of which was centralization of power. These ideas found their natural and practical expression in the episcopate, and this condition of

^lie Early Days of Christianity, author's ed., p. 621. 2 History of tlie Christian Church, by Schaff, vol. ii., p. 140. Ubid., p. 140.

Ubid.t p. 142.

things lent importance to the office of bishop, and put larger powers in his hands.

Unity and centralization were augmented by the further fact that the early Christian congregations formed a kind of charitable society, which served as a small beginning for the connectional idea; and these united congregations needed a visible head to administer their affairs and distribute their charities, and in the Greek communities this work devolved on the bishop. These facts indicate that there was in the early Church an historical necessity for something like the president or bishop, with power to meet the object of the office.

Simultaneously with these developments was propagated another class of ideas that were in their nature an advance on all others. About the year 115 Ignatius taught that the bishop was separate from the presbyter. Irenseus, about the year 180, contended that the office of bishop was a " continuation of the apostolate," and "an unbroken episcopal succession" from them. Near the middle of the third century Cyprian associated episcopacy with " the idea of a special priesthood and sacrifice." These ideas wTere not very distinct, and it is probable that the authors did not discern in them the germ of their historical development; for as late as the year 258 "the functions of the bishop were not yet strictly separated from those of the presbyters." 1

Out of the heresies and divisions of the early Church the counter movements of union and centralization connected with the development of the episcopate, along the line of enlarged powers of the pres-

1 History of the Christian Church, by Sch;iff, vol. ii., pp. 142-144, 149, 150.

ident, on the one hand, and the relation of episcopacy to the apostolic office and the priesthood and sacrifice, on the other, was a growth of another kind, but all in harmony with each other, and moving toward one common end.

At one time the bishops were equal in dignity and authority, and each had the oversight of his own congregation or church; but in the development of the idea of unity there were churches — on account of their geographical or political relation to other churches — that gained power over the others. Through these centers of influence the disputes of the smaller churches, as well as the disagreements among the different churches, were often settled. This gave to the bishop of the central church a dignity and an influence not enjoyed by the country bishops. This community of churches came in time to be considered as a sort of episcopal district, over which the bishop of the central church presided, and exercised an authority over the other bishops and churches of his diocese. The next step was to group these episcopal districts together in their relation to a common center, and make a metropolitan bishop of the one who had charge of the central church, with power to superintend the general interests of the whole territory. In this way the church and bishop of Rome came to be recognized as the head of the whole Church. At first the position of the bishops of the central churches was " a purely honorary distinction." 1

The office of these metropolitan bishops was destined to be more than "a purely honorary distinci History of the Christian Church, by Schaff, vol. ii., pp. 152-157.

tion," for " the bishops of Rome at an early date were looked upon as metropolitan pastors, and spoke and acted accordingly, with an air of authority which reached far beyond their immediate diocese." x This statement is confirmed by the fact that Clement, bishop of Rome, about the close of the first c.mtury, wrote a letter of sympathy and advice to the church of Corinth, which " reveals the sense of a certain superiority over all ordinary congregations." 2

Another assumption of power was developed about the close of the second or the beginning of the third century, when " the bishop of Rome was substituted for the church of Rome," and "when Victor in his own name excommunicated the churches of Asia Minor for a trifling difference of ritual." 3

High ground was taken when, in the third century, " Callistus, to the great grief of part of the presbytery, laid down the principle that a bishop can never be deposed or compelled to resign by the presbytery, even though he have committed a mortal sin." 4

In harmony with the development of authority and power, and as another side-light to the one movement, Cyprian, "starting from the superiority of Peter, transferred the same superiority to the bishop of Rome, as the successor of Peter, and accordingly called the Roman Church the Chair of Peter, and the formation of priestly unity the root also and mother of the Catholic Church."6

1 History of the Christian Church, by Schafl*, vol. ii., p. 157. tlb i<l., p. US.

A logical deduction from the position of the Church, with its conception of unity and. authority, as inherent in the episcopacy, is that there can be no salvation only through the medium of the Church. This conception developed somewhat after the following order: " The scriptural principle, 'Out of Christ there is no salvation,' was contracted and restricted to the Cyprianic principle, * Out of the (visible) Church there is no salvation' ; and from this there was only one step to the fundamental error of Itomanism, 'Out of the Roman Church there is no salvation.' " x

Another branch of this ecclesiastical tree is seen in the fact that the Church held the balance of power until about the year 325. In the middle of the second century these councils held public meetings, and " bishops, with the priests, deacons, confessors, and laymen in good standing," were members; but "after the Council of Nicsea (325) bishops alone had seat and voice"; and the bishops, moreover, did not act as representatives of their churches, nor in the name of the body of the believers, as formerly, but in their own right, as successors of the apostles." 2

The gradual but constant assumption of power and invasion of rights gathered strength from every available quartej, and fed voraciously on its own growth. By the year 325 it had laid a broad and sure foundation for more aggressive and daring usurpations.

Building on the organic unity of the Church, with

1 History of the Christian Church, by Schaff, vol. ii., p. 174.

2Jbid., p. 178. On the development of the powers of the bishops, and the causes leading to the attainment of such powers, the reader can consult,-in addition to Schaff s History of the Christian Church, Giesler's Church History, vol. i., pp. 3til-i59G.

its head at Rome, with all subordinate appendages contributing to thirst for power and ambition for papal supremacy, Innocent III., who was pope from 1198 to 1216, " could broach without concealment the idea, which was already sufficiently widespread, of a theocracy embracing the whole world, in which the pope was to rule as the vicar of God, and in the disputes of princes, as well as all other difficult state causes, to decide as supreme judge."

With the assumption of papal supremacy by Innocent III., " the legislative power of the Church passed so exclusively into his hands that nothing more than a deliberative voice was allowed in councils," and "he was so entirely master of the laws that he was not bound by them himself, and in the case of others had power to dispense with them anti factum, as well as to absolve others."

When once the doctrine of papal supremacy had been established, the way was prepared for the climax of all absurdities— papal infallibility. History tells us that it began to take shape with the doctrine of supremacy. " It arose in the middle ages in connection with the pseudo-Isodorian decretals." x

The foregoing summary of history gives a tolerably plain account of the rise and progress of episcopal church government as it developed into all the pretensions of the Roman Catholic Church. From a small, innocent, and seemingly necessary beginning it has grown into a monster of oppression. With its growth superstition, ignorance, and corruption kept pace. " It would afford an interesting and important topic of inquiry to trace in history the simultaneous

1 Schaff-IIeizog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, vol. ii., p. 1077.

growths of -prelatical assumption and superstition, as side by side, faithful and inseparable coadjutors, they strode on to an undivided dominion over the understanding, the conscience, and the liberties of mankind." *

In confirmation of the above statement Mosheiin says of the morals of the fourteenth century: " That the governors of the Church, as well of higher rank as of inferior, were addicted to all those vices which are the most unbecoming in men in their stations, is testified most abundantly. . . . All the honest and good men of that age ardently wished for a reformation of the Church, both in its head and in its nirinhers" 2

The same author says of the fifteenth century that "no teacher or writer of any eminence can be named who does not plainly and greatly lament the miserable state of the Christian Church, and anticipate its ruin unless God should interpose for its rescue. The disorders both of the pontiffs and of others in holy orders were so manifest that no one dared to censure such complaints." 3

It is difficult to see how anyone can read the history of this question and not be impressed with the fact that not only did immorality grow up with the development of episcopacy, but that the corruptions are the result of the pretensions and usurpations of those in orders. The ecclesiastical pretensions, in themselves so absurd and oppressive, together with the widespread immorality, prepared the way for and

iThe Puritans and Their Principles, b}- E. Hall, third ed., 1847, p. 360. 2 Ecclesiastical History, vol. ii., p. 260. *Ibid., p. 319.

led to the Reformation. The struggle for emancipation was a long and painful one, and on some minds and in some directions success was only partial.

Attention is now called to the relation of the Church of England to our subject. That this Church for a long time held to only two orders in the ministry, and that a bishop was an officer and nothing more, is well established. The " Institution of a Christian Man," known as the " Bishop's Book," declares that " bishops and priests are spoken of as one and the same office." 1 This, it is maintained, is the doctrine of the New Testament. The book was published in 1537, which was soon after the ser aratic n of the Anglican Church from the Church of Borne. Burnett says: "The ' Bishop's Book' was the standard of religion; so that whatsoever was not agreeable to that was judged heretical, whether it leaned to the one side or the other." 2

In addition to the views just referred to, the Church of England recognized non-episcopal churches as a part of the true Church, and admitted the validity of presbyterian ordination. The thirty-third article bearing on this point is: "It is not necessary that traditions or ceremonies ba in all places one, or utterly like; for at all times they have been divers, and may be changed according to the diversity of countries, times, and men's manners, so that nothing be ordained against God's word." To the same effect is the following:

Oanmer and some of the original founders of the Anglican Church, far from maintaining the divine and indispensable

i Burnett's History of the Reformation, vol. ii., p. 586. zibid., p. 485.

right of episcopal government, held bishops and priests to be the same order.1

When the representatives of the Church of England first began to use the phrase, "three orders in the ministry," they explained that by the use of such words they did not intend to invalidate the ministry of other churches, but to express their views on the question, and maintain that they had a valid ministry. With this explanation the position was innocent, and seemed to be fraught with no future dangers.

It would not be difficult to show that the first introduction of highchurch ideas into the ritual of the Church of England was a relic of Romanism, just as it can be shown that AVesley bequeathed to Methodism phrases not altogether consistent with his well-known views on the ministry, and which may yet serve as small seeds from which to grow highchurch notions.2

Archbishop Laud defines the relation of the antereformation and post-reformation churches. He says, representing the Roman Catholic Church as asking the Church of England, "Where was your church before Luther? " Laud's answer is: "It was just there where theirs is now— one and the same church still, no doubt of that;. one in substance, but not in condition of state and purity; their part of the same church remaining in corruption, and our part of the same church under reformation." 3

1Hallam's Works: Constitutional History of England, vol. i., p. 388, footnote.

2 For a full treatment of this phase of the question, see Neeley's Evolution of Episcopacy.

3The Reformation of the Church of England, by J. H. Blunt, M.A., vol. ii., p. 494,

16 CONFEEENOE RIGHTS.

With this view of the relation of the Church of England to the Roman Catholic Church is laid a foundation for more episcopal extravagance and absurdities. Hallam states some of these as follows:

The system pursued by Bancroft and his imitators, Bishops Neile and Laud, was just such as lowborn and little-

minded men, raised to power by fortune's caprice, are ever found to pursue. They began by preaching the divine

right, as it is called, or absolute indispensability of episcopacy; a doctrine of which the first traces, as I apprehend, are found about the end of Elizabeth's reign. They insisted on the necessity of episcopal succession regularly derived from the apostles. They drew an inference from this tenet that ordinations by presbyters were in all cases null; and as this affected all the reformed churches in Europe except their own — the Lutherans not having preserved the succession of their bishops, while the Calvinists had altogether abolishe I that order — they began to speak of them not as brethren of the same faith, united in the same cause, and distinguished only by differences little more material than those of political commonwealths (which had been the language of the Church of England ever since the Reformation), but as aliens, to whom they were not at all related, and schismatics, with whom they held no communion ; nay, as wanting the very essence of a Christian society.1

Bancroft " was the first Anglican divine who publicly maintained the divine riijht of bishops. This was in a sermon preached at St. Paul's Cross, February, 1588-9, in which he maintained that bishops were, as an order, superior to priests and deacons; that they governed by divine appointment; and that to deny these truths was to deny a portion of the Christian faith."2 Bancroft "became bishop of London in 1597. . . He was a high church man, asserting

i Constitutional History of England, vol. i., pp. 387, 388. SMcClintock and Strong's Cyclopodia, vol. i., p. 631.

that the episcopal authority is based upon a divine right." x Bancroft's doctrine of the divine right of bishops, not very strongly stated, was destined to assume an influential position; for Hallam says it was " pretty distinctly asserted, if I mistake not the sense, in the canons of 1606." 2 Hallam also states that "Laud, in his famous speech in the Star Chamber, 1637, and again on his trial, asserts episcopal jurisdiction to be of divine right." 3 It is further stated that "when he performed a theological exercise for his bachelor of divinity degree in the divinity school, Laud also maintained that without episcopacy there can be no true Church." 4

" Such opinions were comparatively unknown in Oxford, but that they exercised considerable influence on the minds of the younger men is shown by the bitter hostility which Laud met with from Abbott and other leading men of the party, which had hitherto had everything its own way."5 Hallam says: "Laud had been reproved by the University of Oxford, in 1604, for maintaining in his exercise for bachelor of divinity that there could be no true Church without bishops, which was thought to cast a bone of contention between the Church of England and the reformed upon the continent."6

As represented by Bishop Hall, the divine right of bishops was derived from the apostles; but this

iSchaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, vol. i., p. 196. 2 Constitutional History of England, vol. i., p. 388, footnote. Ubid., p. 454.

* The Reformation of the Church of England, by J. II. Blunt, M.A., vol ii., p. 491.