BX 8388 .P4 1887 Perrine, William Henry, 1827-1881. Principles of church anve rnmenf 1.^ Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2014 https://archive.org/details/principlesofchurOOperr_0 PRINCIPLES OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT WITH SPECIAL APPLICATION ^ TO THE POLITY OF EPISCOPAL METHODISM, AND A PLAN FOR THE REORGANIZATION OF THE GENERAL CONFERENCE INTO TWO DISTINCT SEPARATE, AND CONCURRENT HOUSES. BY THE LATE WILLIAM U} PERRINE, D.D. ARRANGED AND EDITED, WITH A LIFE STORY AND A REVIEW OF THE LAY DELE- GATION MOVEMENT IN THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, By JAMES H. POTXS, D.D. A'EIV YORK: PHILLIPS HUNT. CINCINNA TI: CRANSTON &> STOIVE. 1887. Copyright, 1887, by PHILLIPS & HUNT, New York. Mt sole aim is to excite those wlio have the welfare of the Church at heart to unite their eudeavors iu opposing the fatal tendencies of centralization of power in the General Conference. If that evil day is delayed it will be because we shall clearly descry that distribution of power essential to liberty built up over against the ramparts of a mighty executive, and so perfect a judicatory as to hold both the legislative and the executive to the strictest construc- tion of their respective responsibilities. Truth will ever be unpalata- ble only to those who are determined not to relinquish error, but can never give offense to honest minds. — Da. Pekrixe. PREFACE. Dr. Perrine was fond of quoting from Milton the line, " Heaven's high behest no preface need?," and so far as the subject-matter and purpose of his writings are concerned the same is true. But our rela- tion to these writings requires a word of explanation. With Dr. Perrine, as with many other great men, the ruling j)assion was strong in death. One of his last requests was that his papers on lay representation and kindred themes might be gathered up and published to the world. Mrs. Perrine intended to fulfill this sacred injunction. She was familiar with her husband's writ- ings, and in hearty sympathy with all his literary efforts; but long absei*e in the West, and attendance upon other duties, interfered with her cherished plans. Slie tlien requested the undersigned to undertake the work of editing these papers for the press. Only the most profound reverence for tlie memory of Dr. Perrine, and the nio^t absohUe conviction that he vv^as sound in the majority of his views, induced us, in the midst of our multifarious duties, to undertake the task. Some difficulty has attended the labor. From the very necessity of the case Dr. Perrine was a controver- sialist. He contended for the supremacy of a strongly ilisputed principle. He antagonized the positions of some of the best writers and speakers in the Church. He sounded their views to the bottom. His treatment of a question was never superticial, but always deep and thorougli. He went back to first principles, and iuv.i- riably submitted the reasons for the faith that was in 6 Preface. Lira, He shrank from contact with no opponent, how- ever great or good or popular. Always respectful, and frequently complimentary, he nevertheless treated his opponents' ideas strictly on their merits, and, when oc- casion required, hesitated not to crush down those ideas with invincible logic, and exhibit their worthlessness by the most scathing rhetoric. Instances of this character- istic will be found in the body of this book, although, for obvious reasons, many of the controversial features and personal allusions have been omitted. 'i'liere was a consistency of word and act in Dr. Per- rine's entire public career wliich few appreciate,but which this volume will, we trust, in some measure indicate. The plan of the book is apparent. The first three chapters are by the editor ; all remaining cha[)ters, foot-notes, incidental editing and arrangement excepted, are by Dr. Perrine. Believing that the principles of our author are in the main correct, and that if practically approved by the Church they will prevent much"lin\vise legislation, save us from many embarrassments, and enshrine the name of our lamented dead in the hearts and hopes of on- coming generations, we most respectfully submit this volume to the attention of thinking people. James II. Potts. After a careful examination of the manuscript of this l)Oi)k I desire to express my high appreciation of the work of its editor, who has successfully overcome the difficul- ties of its compilation. I would present to him my most grateful acknowledgments for the painstaking care and the marked ability he has brought to the work. To the Great Disposer of events I would render thanksgiving for the jn-ovidence which has thus opened the way for the presentation to the Church of principles which seem to me vital to its highest interests. Livonia B. Perrine. CONTENTS. Chapter Page I. The Life Story 9 II. The Lay Dklegation Movement 35 III. The Doctrine of the Priesthood of the People 84 IV. The Special Divi.ve Call to the Ministry 98 V. The Special Commission to Govern 106 VL The Twelve Apostles Especially Commissioned 122 VII. The Special Commission Conveyed to the Ordained Preaching Elders 129 VITI. The " Wesleyan Axiom." 139 IX. The Things Forbidden to the Governors of the Church 149 X. The Optional in Church Government 162 XI. Governmental Maxims 177 XII. The Constitution to be Guarded 193 XIIL Injudicious Legislation .to be Avoided 223 XIV. The Important Interests to be Protected 232 XV. The Division of Labor Principle 241 XVI. Harmony and Unity to be Restored 245 8 Contents. Chapter Page XVII. The New Testament Church to be Exemplified 258 ^Vin. General Conference Re-organization — Comparative Tables 271 XIX. Kemarks on the Foregoing Tables 288 XX. Objections to the Two-House Principle 299 XXI. Plan for Two Houses 304 XXII. Two Houses— Dates of Origin 313 PRINCIPLES OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. CHAPTER I. THE LIFK STORY. " Some men are born great, some acliieve greatuess, and some have greatness thrust upon "era.'' Rev. William H. Perrine, D.D., belonged to that class which achieves greatness. Under God he mapped out his own successful career, and with undaunted heart steadfastly pursued his purpose until summoned to a higher world. Yet he was well born. He traced his lineage back to the Huguenots of France who, at the revocation of the edict of Nantes, braved the perils of the deep to find an asylum in America, where free- dom from persecution and true liberty could be en- joyed. His ancestor, Pierre Perrine, emigrated Avith two sons, Henry and Daniel, in 1685, embarking with other refugees at Rochelle, France, in the ship Cal- edonia, which was wrecked and beached upon the south-east corner of Staten Island. While yet upon shipboard the refugees entered into a solemn covenant that they and their children to the latest generation 10 Principles op Chuech Government. should be the Lord's. Two young brothers, mere chil- dren, were brought ashore in one garment. From these brothers were descended a long line of distinguished Presbyterians. William Henry was of the seventh gen- eration. The family had centered about Monmouth, N. J., and had numerous representatives in the minis- try, and in honored positions in collegiate and civil life. During the revolutionary struggle these all identified themselves firmly and conspicuously with the cause of liberty, and one of the decisive battles of the Revolution was fought on the premises of his grandfather, John Perrine, of Monmouth. In 1798 his family removed to Lyons, N. Y., where William Henry was born, October 8, 1827. In 1833 the family migrated to Michigan, settling in Sandstone, Jackson County. His parents were Presbyterians. When William was once asked how it transpired that he was a Methodist when he had such an heroic Calvinistic ancestry, he replied, "Be- cause, doubtless, it was so "ordained." The family was large, he having eight brothers and four sisters. It was also poor, and its members endured all the hardships of pioneer life. William early mani- fested the intellectual bent which afterward gave him such distinction. His career of self-application, self- help, and self-mastery began in childhood. At eleven he was a close student, though compelled to prosecute his studies nnder great disadvantages. He is said to have borro\verth-ivcstf:rn. CliriiftUin Ad- vocate obtained and published from Dr. E. O. Haven, chairman of the General Conference committee on the subject, a proposition made to the committee by Bishop Ames, in writing, which he recommended as a suitable plan to be adopted. The discussion liad then pro- ceeded so far that it was not deemed advisable by the committee to change this report, and the report of the " committee of conference " on the subject effectually prevented this plan proposed by Bishop Ames from coming before the General Conference. " We greatly regretted at the time," says the Xorth-viestern, " that the General Conference did not take tim-; to weigh this proposition of one of the wisest of our chief pastors. It had, to many minds, some startling aspects. It was a proposition to give concurrent powers to a house of lay delegates in making all our rules and regulations, and in all elections, except only such as relate to minis- terial administration and character. This change was The Lay Delegation Movement, 57 to be made at once, and without a change of general rule." The plan, in detail, was to add to Chapter I, on the " Government of the Church," another section, as fol- lows. "We now quote from Bisliop Ames : "SECTION 11. "of the house of lay delegates. " Question 1. Who shall com])ose the house of lay delegates? and what are the regulations and powers belonging to it ? Answer 1. The house of lay delegates shall be com- posed of so many stewards from within the bounds of each Annual Conference as the conference has minis- terial delegates to tl)e General Conference; yet so tliat the delegates thus chosen sliall have filled the otiice of steward at lenst four full calendar years. " Ans. 2. The house of lay delegates shall meet on the first daj'' of May, 1872, and thenceforward on the fii-st day of May, once in four years perpetually, in such places as shall be fixed only by the concurrent vote of the house of lay delegates and of the General Con- ference, " Ans. .3. At all times when tlie house of lay dele- gates is met, it shall take two thirds to form a quorum for the transaction of business. " Ans. 4. One of the general superintendents shall preside. " Ans. 5. The house of lay delegates shall have con- current authority in making rules and regulations for our Church, and in the election of bishops, and of all 58 PkINCIPLES of CuuRCII GoVEUXMEIfT. officers to be chosen; and in all other matters excejit such as relate to ministerial administration and char- acter. Measures may be originated either in the house of lay delegates or in the General Conference. " Question 2. Hom' shall the lay delegates be chosen ? " Ausicer 1. There shall be a quadrennial confer- ence, composed of one steward from each pastoral charge, to be chosen by the third quarterly conference of the year preceding the session of the General Con- ference. The members of the quadrennial conference thus chosen shall fix the time and place of their meeting, and when organized shall proceed to elect, by ballot, from among the members of their own body, as many delegates to the house of lay dele- gates as the Annual Conference is entitled to have in the General Conference. The quadrennial conferences shall provide for the expenses of the house of lay delegates." A great many other " plans" were submitted and dis- cussed in the newspapers of the period, all tending to show that the ministers and laymen generally diil not especially favor the particular plan proposed, nor think that the General Conference of 1872 was under the s.ightest obligation to adopt it. But it had its sworn friends, as the sequel will show. On the first day of the General Conference of 1872, after the organization of the conference had been effected. Bishop Janes stated that tlie bishops were ready to report the vote of tlie several conferences on the change of the second restrictive rule, providing for the introduction of lay delegates into the General Con- The Lay Delegatiox ^Iovement. 59 ference ; whereupon, at the request of the conference, Bishop Simpson presented the following : " Dear Brethren : The last General Conference devised a plan for lay delegation, which they recora- mended to the godly consideration of our ministers and people. Ill connection with this plan [italics ours] they directed the bishops to lay before the several Annual Conferences a proposed alteration of the second re- strictive rule, and to report the result of the vote thereon to this General Conference. " In compliance with said action, we laid before each of the Annual Conferences the proposition to alter the second restrictive rule, by adding thereto the word ' ministerial ' after the word ' one,' and after the word 'forty-five ' the words ' nor more than two lay delegates for any Annual Conference.' Each conference voted on said proposition, and the aggregate result is as fol- lows : For tlie proposed cliange 4.915 Against the pioposcd change 1.507 Blank 4 "In behalf of the bishops, M. Snipsox." After this report Avas read the following ])aper, signed by J. T. Peck, W. L. Harris, R. S. Foster, G. Haven, and T. M. Eddy, was submitted and read : " Whereas, The General Conference, at its session in Chicago in 1S68, devised a plan for the admission of lay delegates as members of said General Conference, and recommended it to the godly consideration of our ministers and jienple ; and. Pkincipi.es of Church GovjjRXMiiNX. " Mlwreas, A large majority of the members of the Methodist Episcopal Church present and voting in ac- cordance toilh the })rovisi