The ledger. [volume] (Gaffney City, S.C.) 1896-1907, November 27, 1907, Image 1
*
\
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.)