University of South Carolina Libraries
* \ o the Gaffney ledger. a NEWSPAPER IN ALL THAT THE WORD IMPLIES, AND DEVOTED TO THE BEST INTEREST OF THE PEOPLE OF CHEROKEE COUNTY. ESTABLISHED FEB. 16, 1894. GAFFNEY, S. C„ WEDNESDAY. NOVEMBER 27, 1907 $1.00 A YEAR. AN m AND INTER ESTING ADDRESS DELIVERED BY THE REV. MARK L- CARLISLE. Full Text of the Address as Delivered Before the conference at Buford Street Church |_aKt Night. Th» j following is tln j addross d< j - liverm last niglil by Uev. Mark L. Carlisle. |). |>.. before the Historical Society of the South Carolina Confer ence, at the Buford Street Methodist Episcopal church. South, in this city: A few years ago a Presbyterian minister came to me and asked for the authorities, from my library, up on which Methodists base the office and work of the presiding elder. He thought, as many think, that the pre siding eldership is a separate order in the ministry between the bishops and elders, or presbyters. Such an opinion is based, of course, on im perfect knowledge of the theory and wdrl:> of the itinerant system, and one familiar with Methodist law and us age does make so great a mistake. This Presbyterian divine was sur prised, and 1 thought relieved, when told that the presiding eldership is only an office and not an order; that it is temporary and changeable as to its incumbency and personnel; that it carries no ministerial character; that it is based on no specific script ural direction; and that its only justi fication is its expediency in the ef fective oversight of the work of the church. There are, perhaps, some Metho dists who have no very clear under standing of the foundation on which this office rests, and of its limitations and relation to the rest of the work. They accept it, as they accept many things in the church, by authority and as the custom of the fathers. Such an attitude to any important matter is unfortunate and little worthy of thoughtful men, whether ministers or laymen. Unless there is a clear un derstanding of the corelation of work in our Methodist itinerant system, it is easy for many to he swept into presiding eldership, its origin, its co- the facts and into judgments that will not stand the test of fairmindedness. It has, therefore, seemed to me that perhaps as good use as I could make of this hour would be a study of the presiding eldership, its origin, its cor relations, and Its possibilities. These phases of the study are necessarily much interwoven with each other. In fact, the three are one; for the only reason for the existence of the pre siding elder is his relation to the work, and that relation makes pos sible the results that should follow right administration of the office. “Presiding elder is the name given in the Methodist Episcopal churches to an officer whose functions are those of a superintendent within limit ed jurisdiction. * * * The office Is one of very great responsibilty and far reaching influence.’’ (McCllntock & Strong.) The presiding eldership is not universal In Methodism. Of the great Methodist connections only the Methodist Episcopal churches use it. The Canadian Methodists and the Wesleyans of England accom plish the same results by other means. It has never been true, and it never will be true, that any one system or form of supervision is necessary to the churches. The Episcopal over sight i s base,] on scriptural and logic al foundations; yet no one of us will contend that the episcopacy is a sine qua non to the church. There are denominations, great and active and spiritual Christian bodies, that reject the Episcopal form of government. We believe that there are good reas ons for it; that it Is the best and most effective system for us; but we do not believe that It is absolutely necessary to the life of the church. The constitution of the church hedges it about and makes it very hard to do away with it. but Method ism could, and does, live without bishops. Precisely the same is true of the presiding eldership. A right understanding of these things demands a very broad and clear conception of the work of the Holy Spirit in the development and guidance of the church. “And he gave some, apostles; and some, pro phets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ; till we ail come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the statute of the fulness of Christ." (Ephesians iv; 11-13.) “Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same spirit; tind there are differences of administration, but the same Lord; and there are diversities of oper- tions, but it is the same God which worketh all In all. • * * And God hath set some In the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, third ly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healing, helps government, diversities of tongues.” (1 Cor. xii: 4-6-28.) A study of the whole chap ter is profitable. It is clear that a call to the minis try is bv the Holy Ghost. No man of us would dare to asume that di vine prerogative. It is equally cer tain that the regulation of the work of the ministry Is to be determiner under the Spirit’s direction, in accord ance with varying conditions and re quirements. Hence there is great, diversity In administering the affairs of the churches, from the unity of Romanism under its pope, to the well- nigh absolute individualism of some Protestant churches. There is no law of divine right In office in tin* church. The only divine right Is to justify by spirituality and energy the method and function of the office. I’nde r the Spirit the most effective system is to be sought and used; but its use is justified only so long as it is efficient for the advancement of the kingdom of God. And so, if the episcopacy, or the itinerancy, or the presiding eldership, fails of the divine purpose, other methods may he found. But we must he careful to distinguish hetwen the effeteness of all office and the inefficiency of an officer. Methods may he right, but men may l»e wrong. The converse is also true, i The office of presiding elder was creat< d In the earl'- history of Method ism in America, and it appears to have had its origin in the assistants whom Mr. Wesley employed as helps in the direction of his preachers. He had what we might c al] local or Junior preaeherg on the circuits into which Ik* divided his work, and always had an assistant in charge of the whole division, or district. These assistants were invested with much the same authority over those under them that the great founder of Methodism him self exercised. Their authority was akin to the bishopric of later date. But when Mr. Wesley caused Poke am] Asbury to be elected general superintendents, or bishops, in 1784, these assistants in office in America were made subject to them. At the t'hristmas Conference of 1784 twelve elders were elected and ordained, though not all were ordained at the seat of Conference. The question has arisen, whether these twelve men were simpL traveling elders or assist ants to the bishops. From the begin ning there have been two opinions on the subject. One party, consisting mainly of those who have advocated a diocesan episcopacy and the election of pre siding elders by the Conference, in sists that these elders were all elect ed for the assistants’ work. This is Dr Emory’s Interpretition in his His tory of the Discipline. He says, “All elders were at first presiding elders, and insists that the distinction be tween elders and presiding elders was not made until 1792. Up to that date, he thinks, every elder, in the absence of the bishops, was equal in supervisory duty and office; and it is distinctly said that they were to “take charge of all the deacons, traveling and local preachers, and exhorterf.’’ Nothing Is said of au thority being given over other elders. It was not until 1792 that a distinct ion was made and those elders who were not selected by the bishops for assistant and supervisory duties were definitely put under authority of the presiding elders. Dr. Emory’s posi tion Is that, up to 1792, all elders were elected and appointed to the office and duties of presiding elder by the Conference, and each had equal au thority In charge in the absence of the bishop. Against this position, that the Con ference and not the bishop is to ap point the presiding elders, those who approve^ the connectional episcopacy, or general superintendency, and the appointment of presiding elders by the bishop urge; 1st. that from 1784 to 1792 there were each year more elders than presiding elders; 2nd, that the appointment of presiding el ders were to specific districts, and these appointments were always made by the bishop; and 3rd, that the Conference, by acquiescing in such appointment by the bishop of eiders to preside over other elders, did in fact make that action valid. The presiding duties which give name to the office of presiding elder did not, in the practice of the church, belong at first to the new order as soon as it was constituted. They be longed originally to the assistants :'ti ( | w .re gradually transferred to the elders. It was not until 1786 that they were actually made part of the duties of presiding elders anj the of fice of assistant was abolished. It is probable that Dr. Emory and others were misled in their Interpretation by tl" fact that It was possible for any elder to he a presiding elder. It is not likely, however, that in point of fact all elders exerclst-d the same authority. The practice never was to make all ruling elders, though the bishop always, as a matter of course, appointed the presiding elders from the elders. The idea of the transfer of the duties of the assistants to the elders, thus making them presiding elders, seems to have originated with Bishop Asbury. That apostolic man. like Mr. Wesley, was always alert to the needs of the church, and used everything for the advancement of her best interests. It is evident that an organization of the bishops, as sistants. and elder.- had in it possi bilities of eon fusion. Mr, Asbury wanted simplicity and efficiency. He found, after the eldership was insti tuted. as he says in his Notes on the Discipline, “that this order was so necessary” that lie would "make them rulers’’- or presiding elders. Even his idea of such a presiding, or rul ing, eldership was not contempora neous with the Institution of the order of ciders, but came when, as he says, he “afterwards found that they would he useful in performing his du ties of assistant superintendents. His idea was not put Into practice unti' the Annual Confo.ence of 1785. TliK was months after the order of eldqjs had been instituted. The presiding elder is the legiti mate result of the itinerant mlpi^try coupled with episcopal superla/r nd- ency. Those Methodist bodley that have no bishops have no pt^sidlng elders; but bishops, charged /vlth a general administration over t| <• whole connection, must have assistants, who, in a limited territory, can exer cise a more intimate supervision of tin* work. A little study of the itin erancy in the Methodist churches in America will, perhaps, lead to bet ter understanding of the necessity for presiding elders. Stevens, In his His tory of Methodism, says, “Methodism ! with Bs ‘lay ministry’ and its ’itiner ancy’ could alone afford the ministra tions of religion to this overflowing population; it was to lay the moral foundations of many of the great states of the west. It was to become at least the dominant popular faith of the country, with its standard plan- ; fed in every city, town, and almost every village of the land. Moving In the van of emigration, it was to sup ply with the means of religion the frontiers, from the Canadians to the Gulf of Mexico, from Puget’s Sound t 0 the Gulf of California. It was to do this work by means peculiar to itself, by districting the land into cir cuits which . - . could be statedly supplied with religious instruction by one or two traveling evangelists, who, preaching daily, could thus have charge of parishes comprising hun dreds of miles and tens of thousands of souls. , . . Over all these circuits it was to maintain the watchful juris diction of traveling presiding elders, and over the whole system the auper- Intendency of traveling bishops hr whom the entire nation was to be a common diocese.” “Without any disparagement of other churches, we may easily see that they were not in a state to meet the pressing wants of the country. The Episcopal church • • . was not in a position to undertake to any great extent an agtrresslve service. The principles of the Independents, which subordinate the call of a minister to the voice of the church, placed a bar In ti e way of their seeking the out lying populations, inasmuch as there were no churches to address this call; and. though the Presbyterian system is not necessarily so stringent in these matters, . . . yet . . . there was little prospect of their doing much mission ary work. Thus the work fell very much into the hands of the Methodist itineracy. The men were admirably fitted for their task. Rich In relig ions enjoyment, full of faith and love, zealous and energetic, trained to la bor and exertion, actuated by one single motive—that of glorifying God, they thought not of privation, but unhesitatingly followed the emigrants and ’squatters’ in their peregrinations wherever they went. American so ciety was thus imbued with Christian truth and principle as well as accus tomed to religious ordinances’ (Lon don Quarterly Review, 1854). It is easy to understand that such an ef fective missionary movement would have been impossible but for the di rection and guidance of men of large vision who. as bishops and presiding elders, had general superintendence of the work. The ministry of Bishop Asbury shows how effective such gen eral oversight was. He was bishop and presiding elder in one; and histo ry has no noble r company than those that, like him and with him, rode day and night, across mountains and rivers and forests, to carry the mes sage of the King and lay broad and deep the foundations of true religion in this great land. It Is a fact that Mr. Wesley started wltfi no special theory of ministerial Itinerancy. The expediency of the plan alone led to its adoption. It had the capital advantage of enabling one preacher to minister the truth in many places, and made even small abilities available on a large scale. “We have found,” writes Mr. Wes ley, “by long and constant expe rience, that a frequent’ exchange of teachers is best.’’ The American itin erant was of a different sort from his English brother, and his work, lilx* his territory was greater. It was to be expected that methods would be de veloped in such an immense field that were not needed in the smaller one. ]t was out of the necessity for enlarged supervision that the general superintendency grew, and with it the presiding eldership; for It is evident that, unless the number of bishops was very largely increased^ they could not, in such an immense terri tory, exercise efficient supervision. They must have some subordinate as sistants. for not only is the bishop charged with making appointments and defining fields of work, but he Is at the sain** time made responsible for the administration of all the af fairs of the church. Only a limited, diocesan episcopacy could effectively supervise the work and administer the law without those to whom some part of Authority and oversight might he delegated. Hence the develop ment of the present powers and status of the presiding elder is a perfectly natural and logical result of an itinerant ministry, operating in the wide territory of the nation, and having gen**ral superintendents, or bishops, who are answerable to the General Conference for their adminis tration. It ip not for a moment ar gued that no other system could he • •ffectively t sed hut only that this s\ t 'ni has been, and is, used to the advantage of the church and the glory of God. It is even conceivable that othe r methods might bo better, but surely we should not lightly throw aside what hag so evident a provi dential development. Every human system Is to some extent faulty, but close study of this and all others, will show that the chief danger is not In mode, hut in men, not in the office, but in the officer. We come now to a consideration of the relation which the presiding eldership hag to the general order of the church. It Ig clear that hero Is no question of a separate order of the ministry. “The episcopacy of the Methodist Episcopal church is be- ; llevcd to he nearer to the apostolic j model than any other. Its simple idea Is that certain elders are chosen from the body of the presbyters to superintend the church, and are call ed bishops, or superintendents. Both j these terms are used in the ritual, iln virtue of their office the bishops (naturally stand above their brethren. ! With regard to tho ordinary func tions of the ministry, they do n< |differ from others, but extraordinary functions, such as ordaining, presid ing in assemblies, and the like, are laid on them by their brethren and 'exercised by them exclusively and (of right—right not divine, but eccle siastical and human, founded upon the will of the body of pastors. . . accordingly the bishops are elected by the General Conference for life. . . . They are amenable, not to the bench of bishops, hut to the General Confidence, which may even expel them for improper conduct ... It may be questioned whether any form of ;chureh government in the world has more of the elements of power and permanence than this, which express es Wesley’s own idea of a fully or ganized chureh." (lymdon Quarterly Review, -856. > To bishops thus con stituted and authorized is committed the entire administration of the church. This, as we have seen, brought Bishop Ashury’s idea of the presiding elders based on Mr. Wes ley’s former plan of assistants. By such arrangement the bishop is in touch, through the presiding elders, with every part of the field, and at the same time is relieved of the great mass of administrative detail that would he too burdensome for a liniit- °d number of bishops to attend to. Besides, the presiding elders, being appointed by the bishop, holds a close personal relation to him impossible otherwise. He, i. e., the presiding elder, has no original authority at all: It ig all derived and delegated from the bishop, and the bishop may change his representative in the dis trict at his pleasure. In addition to these things, it has been found impos sible for the bishop to know men and charges sufficiently well to make all the appointments himself, and so. by the wisdom of the church, the pre siding elders are made his advisers for the stationing of preachers. Here also the authority is vested in the Tyeire’s History of Methodism, pp. l"7-4o8.) But the question of the powers of the bishop in stationing the preach ers. and of the relation of tin* presid ing elder to the bishop and thn con ference. continued to arise for sever al years, in the General Conference, of 18nn it came up again. Bishop McTyeire says of this period: “The trendof opinion is indicated, not only in what is done, but In what fails to ’e done by legislative body.” The records of tin* General Conference show that for a long period there was dissatisfaction among the ministers over these two intimately related matters; as in these items; — ' Brother Wellg move,) that the new bishop (Whateoati, in stationing the preacher:-, la* aided by a committee of not less than three nor more than four preachers chosen by the confer- , ence.’’ The italics < by th<* conferencei are mine and indicate tin* real animus of the movement. Tie' party advocating this desired not so much to aid the bishop as to keep the appointment subject to tlie wishes of the confer • nee; for that would have been me result of such action. |t is refreshing to see the ch ar and positive way in which these sturdy pioneers stood for the free and untrammeled preog- ative of the bishop in stationing the preachers. The record tersely says, "voted out next day." “Brother Ormond moved that the conference he authorized to nominate and elect their own presiding aiders. This was voted out."—and wisely. Such a rule would have rendered the "Ikdo itinerant machinery absolutely useless, and would have resulted in the overthrow of the general super intendency of the bishops and the establishment of virtual diocesan episcopacy. Men like O'Kelly and Beverly Allen, popular, magnetic, plausible, would have secured tin* suffrages of tlu* conferences and es tablished themselves in place and power, to the detriment of the real interest of Methodism. Again in isos the whole question was under discussion. The constitu tion—for so many call it—was being debated. The perennial subject of the presiding eldership came up. lait with it. ami overshadowing it, was the question of tin* episcopacy. Josh- bishop. No presiding elder can make ua Soule w as the author of the phrase- appointments, even for his own dis trict. The bishop must appoint. These things are all perfectly famil iar. yet it is well to call them to mind again, because the relation of the presiding elder to the bishop and the conference has often been the subject of serious and even intemper ate discussion. ology of the Third Restrictive Rule as it stands in the Discipline; — "They shall not change or alter any part or rule of our government so as to do away with episcopacy or destroy the plan of our itinerant general su- perintendency." Ezekial Cooper, pro posed this form;—•“The General Con ference shall not do away with episcopacy nor reduce our min istry Sol ue'a were directed to enforce such a law. His position seems to be the correct one. The whole matter rests on the Third Restrictive Rule and the gen* «*ial superintendency of the bishops. Tills action of Soule and Bishop McKendree's plain declaration and protest against the action of the Gen eral Conference caused the suspen sion of the resolution for four years. In 1821 the matter was disposed Of by an adverse vote. It had been pre sented i 0 the annual conference in the meantime. The resolution reads as follows; — “Whereas a majority of the Annu al Conferences have adjudged the resolutions making presiding elders elective, and which were passed and then suspended at the last General Conference, unconstitutional; there* fore, “Resolved, That the said resolu tions are not of authority, and shall not he carried into effect.” Since that time there has been no sustained or serious movement to change the relation of the presiding elder to the bishop and the confer ence. Through the trying times of i vil and following years the custom and law have remained unchanged. The bishop appoints the presiding elders- they represent him In the ad ministration of the law; they are an* swerable to him; they are his advis ers in the making of appointments. Occasionally there have been here and there cases of dissatisfaction.— usually growing out of personal re lations and conditions,—but there has been nr demand for a change in the e gallic law. One other phase of the subject de ni mis our attention. It Is the rela tion of presiding elde r to the preach ers and laymen. This would seem simple enough jf one keeps other re lationships in mind; hut it Is just In this region that most of the difficul ties arise. The appointment of a man to the presiding eldership does not m any way change his ministe rial character or functions. He is still only an elder. But there are laid on him certain alminlstratlve duties which bring him into a very vital ami intimate relation to all the offi cial brethren. As the delegate of the bishop, he has to see that the whole law of the church is carried out and fll the affairs of the church adequate ly administered In the district as signed him. This carries with it of recess!tv a very close supeivlslon of the preachers and official laymen of the district, and the presiding elder has a practically unlimited right of inquiry as to certain things. There is no officer in the church who may lie so useful in the development of af fairs and men. He alone can give that unity of impulse to the district to a preshyterian parity.” that Is needed for great results, language prevailed. Coop- Through him the bishops can carry The office and title of presiding el der appear for the first time In the Discipline in 1792. “Such an order er am j 0 t' Qers labored hard also out great plans for the advance of the of elders, says Lee. had never been to j, ave seven bishops, one for each spiritual and material Interests of the regularly established before. They con f erence< 'They were favorable al- whole church. had been appointed by the bishop for g0 to an e i ec tj ve presiding eldership The other chief work of the presld* several years; but it was a doubt in !an( j introduced a resolution that ing elder is in advising the bishop the mind of the preachers whetJier “Each Annual Conference respective- about the appointments. There was such power belonged to him. The w ithout debate, shall annually a time when preachers and charges General Conference now determined choose by ballot Its own presiding were few, and Mr. Wesley, or Bishop that there should he presiding elders, j The resolution was lost by Asbury, knew the fields and workmen and that they should be chosen, sta- a vo t e jq 52. so individually and Intimately that Honed and changed by the bishop. Again In 1812, “After a serious they could make appointments wlth- Ihe celebrated case of O Kelly prob-' strU ggi e tw0 jgyg j n (j enera | con-|Out the help of any one. But, ob- ably Influenced the General Confer- f erence f 0 change the mode of ap- viously, as numbers increased there ence in this action. He had tried to pointing presiding elders, It remains would be Increasing difficulty in do- make himself independent of Asbury as jf w as.” (Asbury’s Journal.) Ing this; and, unless the number of and the general connection,’ and to j n jgjg question came up again; bishops was increased in like ratio, 116 hut now the idea was that the candi- some provision must be made for nec- be left in his district, which a had been traveling since his ordlna- dates for presiding elder were to be ossary assistance and information, tion in 1781. McTyeire says. It is nominated by the bishop and elected Many plans have been proposed, and, supposed that disadvantages result- py the conference. The conservative as we have seen, there was a long and ing from his case led to the present majority had Increased, and the mo- stubborn fight over the matter. Yet, limitations of the office. The new tion was lost. as a matter of fact, the cabinet is law provided that the b'shop should ^ t), e General Conference of 1820 secondary result of the presiding el- appoint the presiding elders, not al- there was need for a new bishop, and dershlp and not its primary reasc lowing them a longer term than four Joshua Soule was elected on the first It might even he asserted that the >ears on any one district. It was like-,p a ij 0 t g| x ( j a y g ] a ter the presiding stationing power of the bishop is not elder question was up again. The "y any means the chief reason for radical element had gained strength, his existence. But given the bishop a»d the conference agreed, as a peace ;,n, l the power vested in him to make measure, that when a presiding elder- appointments, and the necessary as- ship became vacant the bishop should sistance in that work would naturally nominate wise determined that the districts should he formed according to the judgment of the bishop. . . . More over, it was also said, ‘The bishop shall appoint the time of holding the district conference.”’ It is interest ing to note how, In the very begin ning. the power of the bishop is called in question, and how positive ly the General Conference declared the presiding elder, like other preach ers. to be at the disposal of the bishop, and yet constituted him in an especial sense the bishop’s deputy and representative. "An annual conference, including s< 1 era 1 districts as now. had not then been developed. It wag not until four years later that the territory of the churcfi wag mapped out into confer ences in the present way. . . . The pres! 'ing elder was a sort of diocesan bishop, holding his four quarterly conferences fo r each circuit, and then if the general superintendent he ab sent, ence.’ the efficient and thorough organiza tion of Methodism as an Episcopal church, when this officer’s place and powers were defined. ... As the gen eral superintendent unifies the con- nectlon, taking the oversight of all the churches, ... so the presiding elder unifies the district with Its va rious circuits, stations, and missions. • • • Fuch officers are the supplement of the general itinerant superintend- ency; without them it would he 1m- praetlcahle en a continental scale. They complete the local supervision and make the general one possible. Being selected for experience and ability, they make a large amount of ministerial talent in young or un trained men available, who otherwise could not safely t*e entrusted with the pastoral care. By their help, advice and direction the feeble parts are strengthened and temporary vacan cies supplied. They restrain the err ing, encourage the despondent, plan for improvement and progress, main- three men for the office; the annual conference, by ballot, was to elect one of those three; and the presiding elders thus chosen should he the advisory counsel of the bishop in stationing the preachers. Bishop Soule took no part in the discussion, although in 1808 he nan been largely the means of fixing the presiding eldership in the organic law of the church. He looked upon that action as a constitutional enactment, simi this decision now to elect presid ing elders was, to his thinking, a breach of the constitution. No man eve r bettor understood the meaning of constitutional safeguards than Soule. “He understood the protect ion an ( i order of law; he had too clear a mind to fail to see the possible dis- presiding at the ‘Yenrlv Confer- r ~ ter when la w is disregarded, . . . It wag a great step forward In To accept the episcopacy and enforce an unconstitutional enactment was for him to do wrong, and he would not knowingly and willingly do It.” (Collins Denny.) and logically be found in those who are appointed to assist him as pre siding elders. Any other arrangement would be cumbersome and confusing. We have, therefore, as a result of the growth of our Itinerant episco pal system this condition of affairs: —A bishop who Is charged with the administration of the law; unde.- him necessary subordinates for such ad ministration in the presiding elders: these nvn subject to the bishop’s ap pointment and for the m he Is respon sible. But the bishop is further charged with the making of the an nual appointments to the charges; the number of charges and preachers is too great for him to know all per sonally; he must, therefore, have assistance and information from some source; the presiding elder of each district is in a position to know about men and charges, for he comes into close contact with both ahd equally with all In the district: the bishop So "it"~came~about , w , 0,11,1 therefore naturally require of that Soule resigned the episcopacy. It is not necessary to go Into the de tails of the conference action. Soule was asked to withdraw his resigna tion and be ordained. He declined. The bishops then asked for another finally consented to let be deferred for four tain uniformity and continuity, and, bility and ureonstltutlonallty of being appointees of the bishop, work election of presiding elders and election, but the (lection years. The point of interest in our study Is In the fact that one of the greatest men of Methodism, the man who for conviction’s sake threw in his lot with the Methodist Episcopal Churcfc, South, when the division came in 18)4; the rnan whose last message to bis colleagues was. “Push forward the great work,” and who died “ ad mired, respected, venerated, loved by the Methodists of the South, and passing years do not dwarf him,”— • his man clearly saw the impractlca- the de- him any Information needed for the proper adjustment of matters in that district. The next step Is natural and wise; that the presiding elders of each conference be made a cabi net to help the bishop, each having the same access to the episcopal ea?, and all things being done openly. When to this Is added the fact of a constantly changing episcopal presi dency and the bringing to bear on the force and effectiveness of the mem bers of the cabinet of the best judg ment of the different bishops, it Is easily seen that the chances of mis take are much reduced. Bishop James Atkins (then Sunday school editor) once said. "I regard the presiding eldership as the great est opportunity In the Southern Meth odist Church." One can easily sob his meaning. The real advance work of the church Is dependent there. with him to connectional unity." (Mc-jdlned to be ordained a bishop If he f (Continued on Page Four.)