The constitution of the Methodist Episcopal churches in America

Front matter

OF THE

METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCHES

IN AMERICA

Preface

The veto message of the bishops to the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, in 1894, marks an epoch in the constitutional history of the Church. The fact that it was the first episcopal veto ever interposed made it sufficiently notable to attract wide attention ; but its real significance lay in something far deeper than mere novelty, and its effect was more far-reaching than to the mere arrest of an unconstitutional act. It reminded the Church with tremendous emphasis that the plan for the introduction of lay delegates into the General and Annual Conferences, adopted in 1866, was an amendment and extension of the constitution itself; that as such it was as binding upon the General Conference as was any part of that instrument, and that all amendments of it since 1866 by mere resolution of the General Conference were null and void.

When an exceptionally clear-headed and strong ecclesiastical lawyer, Dr. Paul Whitehead, of Virginia, assailed the position of the bishops on the floor of the General Conference and in the Church press, it became evident that there was room for doubt, and the author, for his own satisfaction, determined to go to the root of the matter and ascertain, if he could, what was the true state of the case. While leisurely pursuing his investigations he was appointed a member of the Constitutional Commission of the Church, and shortly thereafter was invited to read a paper on the constitution before the Preachers' Institute of the Louisville Conference.

Under these circumstances he naturally began to look about for what had been written upon the subject generally, and, failing to find anywhere what he considered an adequate treatment of it in all its parts from a calm, judicial, and uncontroversial standpoint, he was led into a critical study of the original sources, which are, in the main, the journals of the General Conference. These investigations interested the author, and have interested others; for on a memorable night in June,

6 Preface.

some two or three years ago, while the thermometer registered near the nineties, quite a number of the members of the Preachers' Institute kept awake (in relays) to hear an exposition of some of them. At the close they were kind enough, by resolution, to express approval of the paper and request its publication. Out of it has grown this brochure, which is now diffidently submitted to the judgment of the larger Methodist public, with the hope that it may serve to awaken an interest in a too much neglected subject.

It has not been the aim of the author to minutely dissect the constitution, or to comment in detail upon its various provisions; but rather to give the history of its development as a whole, and then treat it in its broad relations to the Church, to the General Conference, and to the sovereign constituency back of the General Conference. The interesting and engaging subject of the nature and constitutional functions of the episcopacy have been fully and exhaustively treated by other writers, and are therefore but lightly and incidentally touched upon. The questions raised by the Restrictive Rules (What are the standards of doctrine? What is the plan of itinerant general superintendency ? Who owns the Publishing House?) are all full of interest, but discussion of them has been purposely omitted.

The author has not seen fit to attempt an elaborate definition of the word "constitution." As used in this essay it means simply the written instrument adopted by the last convention of the traveling preachers, in 1808, creating a delegated General Conference and defining its powers; and such alterations in or additions thereto as have been lawfully made since that time. The question as to whether or not the Articles of Religion and General Rules also belong to the written constitution of the Church, and hence should be included in a discussion of the constitution, he has chosen to ignore as not specially profitable, and it is mentioned here only to forestall criticism of the omission. He has, however, in the last sentence of Chapter IX. ventured to make a practical suggestion which has reference to the question in its bearing upon the proposed revision of the constitution.

The references given in the footnotes from time to time indicate sufficiently the works consulted by the author; but in

Preface. 7

addition to them he desires to acknowledge indebtedness to a stimulating series of articles in the New York Christian Advocate by Dr. J. M. Buckley, entitled "Storm Centers in the General Conference," and to Hon. Hiram Sibley's very able essay on the "Organic Law of the Methodist Episcopal Church." He is also specially indebted to Dr. J. J. Tigert for helpful suggestions and for his painstaking care in passing the book through the press. Wilbur Fisk Barclay.

Church Extension Rooms, Louisville, Ky., March 4, 1902.

Contents

Page

Dr. Tigert's Introduction n

Chapter

Introduction

As a member of our constitutional commission and as secretary of that body, Mr. Barclay has had unusual incentives and opportunities for the study of the questions discussed in the following pages. Jie has brought to his task a trained legal mind, acute and sober, and has used great diligence in probing to the bottom the several problems he has undertaken to solve. The result is a clear, condensed, and, I think, accurate statement of the course of the history which Mr. Barclay has had occasion to bring under review, and a very strong legal and historical presentation of the grounds on which his conclusions rest. Whether one accepts or rejects these conclusions, or holds them in suspense, he will be obliged to concede the conspicuous ability and lucidity of the argumentation by which they are supported, and the general breadth and fairness with which the author states and replies to objections. A strong and wholesome intellectual breeze blows through these pages, which every student of the questions involved will thoroughly enjoy.

Nevertheless, it seems to me that Mr. Barclay has not wholly escaped the temptation, more than once illustrated in Methodist history when those learned in the civil law have undertaken to expound the law of the Church, of basing his argument too confidently upon assumed parallels between the principles of our civil and our ecclesiastical government. The truth is, Methodist government and law are unique, having a genius and history all their own. The contention of the General Conference itself, of McKendree, McTyeire, and others, that there was originally no tribunal for constitutional questions— save as the voice of the traveling elders in the Annual Conferences might make itself heard — needs to be historically understood.

It had no reference to such matters as (i) the trial of a bishop, (2) the appeal of a traveling preacher, or (3) the determination of the right of a delegate elect to sit in the Gen-

12 Introduction.

eral Conference — questions expressly or by common consent committed to the jurisdiction of the General Conference — but to those questions in which the General Conference as a delegated body with limited powers should, as an agent, come into collision with its principal, and for the decision of which it would of necessity be a partial and, therefore, an unfit tribunal. Mr. Barclay appears to be unquestionably correct in his exposition of the three points mentioned above, and has done excellent service in calling attention to them. But the danger of constituting a party in interest, and that party an agent with derived and defined powers which it might be tempted to overstep, a supreme court, is too obvious to be argued. Consequently our Church has embodied in its constitutional law an independent tribunal of this nature, whose necessity had been recognized with great unanimity from 1820 to 1870. Mr. Barclay's conception of a supreme judicial authority of the General Conference seems to approximate that developed in the Methodist Episcopal Church since 1844. I do not believe that doctrine is solidly based. Bishop McKendree's so-called veto was but an appeal from the creature and agent, the General Conference, to that sovereign, the body of traveling elders, of whose authority Mr. Barclay makes so much in other connections. Episcopacy and General Conference are alike agents holding a charter from those elders; consequently in an issue between these two chartered authorities the appeal lies to the supreme author of the charters, whose agents the chartered authorities are.

The most original and attractive doctrine, presented with great force by Mr. Barclay in these pages, is that the sovereign elders can enact by majority vote legislation prohibited to the General Conference by the Restrictive Rules. Simple and beautiful as the doctrine appears to be, and forcefully as Mr. Barclay argues it, it does not seem sound for the following reasons: (1) If it had been the intention of the fathers of 1808 to set up or to retain the body of traveling elders as a legislature superior to the General Conference to determine by majority vote measures falling within the area prohibited to the General Conference, then the constitution, instead of the cumbersome machinery provided for the alteration of a Restrictive Rule, would have simply said, "All power re-

Introduction. 13

served in the above Restrictions from the General Conference shall be exercised by the body of traveling elders in such manner as from time to time they may agree upon"; (2) the enactment for the alteration of the Restrictive Rules ordains specifically the manner in which the residual sovereignty of the traveling elders shall be exercised, namely, through the medium of the General Conference by an extension of its legislative powers, and by this specific provision excludes all others, according to the legal maxim, inclusio unius exclusio alterius; (3) the fact that in all the crises which have arisen in nearly a hundred years of government under the constitution in both Methodisms, such as those of 1844 and the recent adoption of the new constitution in the Methodist Episcopal Church, when the wisest ecclesiastical statesmen of Methodism have been compelled to view the questions at issue in every light, no man has been wise enough to hit upon the simple substitute of a majority vote of the traveling elders for the two-thirds majority in the General Conference and the three-fourths majority of the traveling elders, would seem to be conclusive proof that the alleged reserved power does not exist ; (4) Mr. Barclay's argument proves too much, and appears to reduce to an absurdity ; for, if an effort to alter a Restrictive Rule should fail of the three-fourths majority, then the traveling elders could turn about, in the exercise of their reserved powers, and accomplish the object aimed at as a piece of independent legislation on their part, by a simple majority vote; as they are the sovereign makers of the constitution, which was ordained by a vote of the majority, this majority action of theirs might be extended to bestowing additional powers on the General Conference, as in the first instance, or to the entire abolition of the existing constitution by the substitution of a new one ; in either case contrary to the express provisions of that instrument. In a word, the "reserved powers," unspecified in the constitution, are of such a nature as completely to nullify the "limitations and restrictions" under which the General Conference is ganted "full powers to make rules and regulations for our Church." Both law and history, I fear, give their verdict against Mr. Barclay's contention.

Finally: I may be wrong in the surmise that the method for altering the first Restrictive Rule was omitted from the

14 Introduction.

Discipline in 1832 for prudential reasons; but it still seems clear that the provision in the constitution of 1808 was never constitutionally repealed. It is consequently still in force.

It is due both the author, and the writer of this Introduction, to say that the candid statement of my objections to some points in a letter to the author immediately after the reading of his MS. led to the restatement and strengthening of his argument ; and that Mr. Barclay has cordially expressed his preference that I should make, as I proposed, a "moderate and modest" statement of my dissent on these points. For the rest, I believe this publication to be most opportune and likely to have a really useful mission in our Church. I cordially commend it to the notice of the members of the approaching General Conference, to which the report of the constitutional commission will be made, and to all interested in the questions which it so ably discusses.

Jno. J. Tigert.

Nashville, 17 March, 1902.

CONSTITUTION OF THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCHES IN AMERICA

Chapter I

The Beginnings of Methodist Polity — The American System Prior to 1808.

In its inception, the Methodist system of Church government was purely personal, with Mr. Wesley as autocrat. In a remarkably vigorous passage inserted by him in the Large Minutes,1 the "Revised Statutes" of the Wesleyan Connexion, he gives an account of the development of his unique authority, showing that his followers had voluntarily attached themselves to him and, without solicitation upon his part, had placed themselves under his guidance and leadership. Whenever they chose, they could withdraw without censure ; but while they remained, he exacted absolute obedience. When assembled in Conference they were present at his request and only as his advisers ; he governed. His was a power which "the providence of God had cast upon him, without any design or choice of his."

"What is this power? It is a power of admitting into and excluding from the Societies under my care ; of choosing and removing stewards ; of receiving or of not receiving helpers ; of appointing them when, where, and how to help me; and of desiring any of them to meet me when I see good. And 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

1 See Tigert's "Constitutional History," p. 21 ; Neely's "Governing Conference," p. 10; Sheermans "History of the Discipline," p. 82 ; "Wesley's Works," American Edition, Vol. V., p. 220.

2 (17)

off — so it is on the same considerations, not for profit, honor, or pleasure, that I use it at this day. But some of our helpers say, 'This is shackling* freeborn Englishmen' ; and demand a free Conference — that is, a meeting of all the preachers, wherein all things shall be determined by most votes. I answer: It is possible after my death something of this kind may take place, but not while I live. To me the preachers have engaged themselves to submit, to serve me as sons in the gospel ; but they are not thus engaged to any man or number of men besides. To me the people in general will submit, but they will not thus submit to another. It is nonsense, then, to call my using this power 'shackling freeborn Englishmen.' None needs to submit to it unless he will, so that there is no shackling in the case. Every preacher and every member may leave me when he pleases ; but while he chooses to stay, it is on the same terms that he joined me at the first."

Until the organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church, at the Christmas Conference, in 1784, the Methodist preachers in America sustained to Mr. Wesley precisely the same relation as their English brethren; they were his "sons in the gospel," and entirely subject to his will. At their first regular Conference, held m r773> at which ten preachers received appointments and 1,160 members were reported in society, they headed their journal "Minutes of Some Conversations between the Preachers in Connexion with the Reverend Mr. John Wesley," following the form of the English minutes, and adopted a resolution declaring their complete subjection to Mr. Wesley as their spiritual head and lawgiver. As, however, it was necessarily impossible for him to superintend in person the work in America as he did that in England and Ireland, he appointed a personal representative, whose authority was fully recognized by the American preachers. During the period of the war for independence this relation was greatly disturbed, and even a temporary schism resulted. Into the troubles of that period, however, it is not necessary to enter.

By 1784 it had become apparent not only to the Americans, but also to Mr. Wesley himself, that if American Methodism would accomplish its mission of "spreading scriptural holiness over these lands" its tireless itinerants must become something more than "preachers in connexion with the Reverend Mr. John Wesley," and their multiplying flocks something more than societies in connection with the Church of England.1 A general Conference of the preachers was therefore called at the suggestion of Mr. Asbury, to meet at Baltimore on December 24, 1784 — the famous Christmas Conference. The preachers there assembled proceeded to organize themselves and their brethren and flocks into an independent body, the Methodist Episcopal Church in America, and provided for it a regular code of laws, drawn in the main from the Large Minutes of the English Wesleyans.

This organizing Conference adjourned without mak-

\A.t the Deer Creek Conference, 1779, it was asked, "Shall we guard against a separation from the Church, directly or indirectly?" and the answer was, "By all means." (Printed Minutes, 1813, p. 19.) The connection with "the Church" was ill-defined, and not recognized by the denomination, but, such as it was, was jealously preserved by the conservative majority of our fathers.

ing any provision for future meetings of a similar character, and none assembled until eight years later. Such legislative measures as were proposed during this period were sent around from one Annual Conference to another, so that all the preachers might have opportunity to vote upon them; and the majority decided.1 Such an arrangement was, of course, very cumbersome and unsatisfactory.

In 1792 another general convention was called to meet at Baltimore, and assembled there in November of that year. This body took in hand the matter of all legislating for the Church, and, having provided for the quadrennial reassembling thereof, it thereby obviated the necessity of passing measures around to the Annual Conferences in future. The new assembly was not designed to usurp any of the functions of the Annual Conferences ; it was simply a joint session of all the Annual Conferences, called together to transact legislative and other business of the connexion at large. It was to be called the "General Conference," and henceforth those two words formed the appellation of a well-defined legislative body, and not, as theretofore, a mere phrase descriptive of an assemblage of all the preachers. Its membership was defined as consisting of all the traveling preachers in full connexion. In 1800 the further qualification was added that they must have traveled four years, and in 1804 it was provided that the four years should be counted from the time of reception on trial by an Annual Conference.

1 The general rule was as stated in the text, but there were some exceptions. During this period, also, the experiment of the Council was tried. It is not germane to our purpose to go into these matters in detail.

The General Conference thus constituted was the supreme power in the Church. The government was a democracy of the Athenian type, with the General Conference as its popular assembly, the laity, in so far as ecclesiastical power was concerned, having no standing.

The burden of assembling all the preachers at one time and place for a General Conference was felt from the beginning. At the very first session of the quadrennial series of that body, in 1792, "the preachers generally," said Jesse Lee in his "History of Methodism," "thought that in all probability there would never be another Conference of that kind, at which all the preachers in connexion might attend. The work was spreading through all the United States and the different territories, and was likely to increase more and more, so that it was generally thought that this Conference would adopt some permanent regulation which would prevent the preachers in future from coming together in a General Conference." This reasonable expectation, however, was disappointed, and sixteen years rolled around before it was realized. In 1 800 James Tolleson introduced a resolution looking to a delegated General Conference, and giving the argument in favor of it :

Whereas much time has been lost, and will always be lost in the event of a General Conference being continued; and whereas the circuits are left without preachers for one, two, and three months, and other great inconveniences attend so many of the preachers leaving their work, and no real advantage arises therefrom;

Resolved, That, instead of a General Conference, we submit to a delegated one.1

This proposition was rejected by the Conference, but 1 This resolution furnishes an illustration of the meaning the agitation would not down. It was not brought forward again in 1804, being postponed, the chroniclers say, by common consent to 1808. The situation in 1804, however, greatly accentuated the need of reform. The number of preachers entitled to seats was about two hundred and forty, while the number in attendance was only one hundred and seven. The Conferences nearest by (the Philadelphia and Baltimore) between them had present sixty-six members, while the other five Conferences (the Virginia, the South Carolina, the New England, the New York, and the Western) had present only forty-one members. This centralization of power in the hands of two Annual Conferences was contrary to the American idea, and extremely distasteful to the brethren nearer the borders.

There were, then, four weighty reasons why a delegated General Conference should be substituted as the supreme legislative body of the Church : ( 1 ) The General Conference as then constituted was becoming too large; (2) it was practically impossible for all its members to attend it; (3) those who went left their flocks unattended for from one to three months, and it was extremely important to avoid this as far as possible by reducing the number of such absentees ; (4) the necessary absence from its sessions of those who occupied remote fields tended to concentrate all power in the hands of the preachers nearest the place of meeting, which, prior to 1812, was always Baltimore.

still familiarly attached at that time to the words "General Conference"—to wit, a Conference composed of all the qualified preachers. The antithesis is between general and delegated.

CHAPTER II. The Constitution of 1808

When the General Conference met in Baltimore in 1808 the time seemed ripe for the proposed change to a delegated General Conference, and the Church seemed ready. There were then seven Annual Conferences : the Baltimore, the Philadelphia, the Virginia, the South Carolina, the New York, the New England, and the Western. Four of these had united in a memorial to the General Conference earnestly recommending the proposed reform. At that time there were about two hundred and sixty preachers entitled to seats in the General Conference; and of these, one hundred and forty-six, or a safe majority of the whole number, were in the four petitioning Conferences. Of their number, however, only forty-eight attended that General Conference ; while of the one hundred and fourteen entitled to seats from the other three Conferences, eightyone were present.

The memorial was as follows :

The memorial of the New York Conference to the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States, to sit in Baltimore the 6th of May, 1808 :

Very De.ir Brethren: We, as one of the seven eyes of the great and increasing body of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States, which is composed of about five hundred traveling preachers 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>

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 connexion, and to establish such regulations, rules, and forms of government as may, by the blessing of God in Jesus Christ, promote the cause of that 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 inhabitable 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 with sorrow, but to serve the great 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 connexion, 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 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 tha* 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 connexion, 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 union and prosperity of the connexion, 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, etc.

By order and in behalf of the New York Conference, without a dissenting vote. Francis Ward, Secretary.

Cocyman's Patent, May 7, 1807.

The above memorial was concurred in with practical unanimity — only five dissenting votes all told — by the Eastern (or New England) Conference on June 3, 1807; by the Western Conference on September 16, 1807; and by the South Carolina Conference January 2, 1808. The Virginia Conference met February 2, 1808, the Baltimore on March 2, 1808, and the Philadelphia on March 20, 1808. There is no record to show that either of them acted upon this memorial, though it can hardly be doubted that it was laid before them. Two of these three Conferences were grouped about Baltimore, where, u^ to that time, the General Conferences had always met. It was easily possible for nearly all of their preachers to attend the General Conference and take part in its proceedings. This privilege and this preponderating power in the councils of the Church, they hesitated to surrender ; so that it may be readily seen that a project which met with unanimous favor in the more remote Conferences might find near the center strong opposition. It was not easy to give up life seats in so distinguished a body of ecclesiastics.

It will be observed that the demand for a delegated legislature was based, in the memorial, upon the grounds which have already been noticed;1 and that not a word was said about the limitations to be placed upon the powers of the new Conference. There is not the slightest indication in the memorial that there was any concern upon that subject. Dr. Bangs,2 writing thirty years later, says that prior to 1808 it was considered that the unlimited power of the General Conference to "alter, abolish, or add to any article of religion or any rule of Discipline" was too great for the safety of the Church and the security of its government and doctrine. He quotes no authority, however, and I have seen no contemporary evidence that there was any anxiety or special concern upon that account. The memorial does not hint it. The meat of the matter desired was a delegated body, endowed with ample powers to conserve the "unity and prosperity of the whole connexion."

The story of the progress of the legislation which resulted in the ordaining of a delegated General Conference, with a carefully drawn definition of its constituent parts and its powers as told in the journal, is as follows :