ART. V. THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE DISCIPLINE. THE proper administration of the Discipline is a matter of grave importance to the welfare of the Methodist Episcopal Church. As yet, it has not received the attention which its importance demands. There is, perhaps, no part of our ecclesiastical machinery so little understood, and so inefficiently worked, as the part which relates to the administration of the discipline. Not that the machinery itself is greatly defective. It is not. No other ecclesiastical body has a better. The fault is not in our judicial system, but in its administration. It is this that is frequently inefficient and open to criticism; and that, too, when it is possible for it to be most efficient in its workings and trustworthy in its results.

We are suffering both from laxness of administration and from clumsiness in its attempt. The difficulty attending and the labor involved in the investigation of alleged crimes charged against offenders are so great, that the administrator sometimes shrinks from them, and evades the unpleasant task, if possible. The result is, offenders remain in the Church, elements of weakness to it, and stumbling-blocks in the way of its progress. Or, if it is attempted, the methods of investigation are frequently such that they fail to elicit the truth. The consequence is, the guilty escape, or, perhaps, what is rarer, the innocent suffer. Because of this, ecclesiastical courts are looked upon with suspicion, and the trials conducted in them assumed to be inefficient in their methods, and unreliable in their findings a result greatly to be deplored.

We lack uniformity of administration, also. One pastor or presiding elder tries to enforce the discipline and preserve the purity of the Church; another evades or ignores it. Different localities and different administrators have different modes of administration. With some, it is lax; with others, what is called liberal; with still others, critical and exact. All these the laxness, the clumsiness, and the lack of uniformity -are hinderances in the way of the true work of the Church. Any Church that does not keep itself pure, that does not sho wintelligence and wisdom in the administration of its laws, and that does not have power enough, as a system, to impress

uniformity in its administration, cannot long command the respect, secure the confidence, or exert much influence for good over mankind. The avenues through which the Church reaches and controls men are the avenues of its wisdom, efficiency, and purity; and if the world does not see in it these elements-if it does not possess them, it has lost its influence for good and its power over men.

To call attention to these evils, and the possibility of remedying them, and at the same time stimulate the Church to effort in that direction, is the object of this paper. In it I propose to discuss the whole question of administration, under the five following general divisions of the subject:

I. To call attention to the principles of authority underlying the government of the Church, by and through which it is possessed of power to exclude unworthy persons from its body.

II. To show the limits and kind of jurisdiction which the Methodist Episcopal Church gives to its administrators, and the several duties it imposes upon them.

III. To define the qualifications and the spirit which should characterize the true administrator, in conducting all investigations coming under his jurisdiction.

IV. To define the manner in which a Church court should be conducted, and to discuss the application of the principles and rules of evidence prevailing in civil courts to ecclesiastical

courts.

V. To show that our ecclesiastical courts may become the most reliable of all courts, the surest in eliciting truth and rendering verdicts which will command the approval of honorable and thinking men.

In accordance with this plan I proceed,

I To call attention to the principles of authority underly ing the government of the Church, by and through which it is possessed of power to exclude unworthy persons from its body.

The authority which the Church has over the individuals composing it, rests upon the broadest possible foundations, both of reason and the will of God. They are the same as those upon which the state rests, and are twofold in their origin and character. One of the greatest philosophers and jurists of

modern times has said, concerning the principles underlying civil government: "One thing is always essential to civil societies that each member of a society should relinquish in favor of the social body a portion of his rights, and there should be a power capable of governing all individuals, of giving them laws, and of coercing those who refuse to obey." Aristotle, long centuries ago, said, "A truly human life is in society; individuals are only accidental parts of the social whole." * Hence, the individual being less than society-on the principle that a single part is less than the sum of all the parts-if he infringes against the rules which govern the whole, and which are ordained for its interests, society must deal with the offender. Therefore, he says, "The moral mean in social life is between doing wrong and suffering wrong, which is justice." All governments are founded upon these principles; all states stand on these foundations. They are simple, but they are universal, and no social body can exist without them. The Church, on its human side, is a civil society, a state, and, as such, it must have government and administration. If it is to command the respect of mankind, and conserve the ends for which it exists, it must be possessed of these powers. Viewing the Church from this stand-point, another high authority has said of it: "The quality of the true visible Church is purity, and a union under no other than moral motives. The relation of its members to each other rests upon the principles of freedom. The Church is, therefore, a free state, neither a hierarchy nor democracy."+

This definition of the Church is almost an exact definition of ecclesiastical Methodism. "Such a society is none other than a company of men having the form and seeking the power of godliness." They are "banded together" for this purpose. It is a voluntary union for moral ends-a free state. This implies government, discipline, laws, and their execution. Being a voluntary and free state, existing for the purposes named, it cannot "coerce" in the sense of inflicting physical penalty, but it can by inflicting moral penalty. It can compel compliance with its laws or exclusion from its body, and the privileges belonging to that body, for the attainment and * Wolff, "Law of Nations."

Kant, "Religion within the Bounds of Pure Reason."

preservation of the ends for which it exists, namely, its "essential quality," purity.

But there is another and a higher class of principles than those already named underlying the government of the Church. These are principles of divine character and authority. The Church is more than a free state existing for moral ends; it is God's visible kingdom among men. It has an authority, therefore, higher than that given it by the individuals who voluntarily enter into it and compose its body. God is its king and lawgiver. His authority is supreme; and he to whom he delegates it, possesses it-holds it by supreme right, arising out of divine enactment. That God has committed authority to the Church to govern, cannot be denied; and this authority, though exercised by the Church, is God's authority. Whether we consider this right to govern as lodged in the whole body of Christians, and delegated by them to those whom they set apart to rule-as we most steadfastly believe, and as Methodism teaches or as committed to the few, and transmitted from them by the "laying on of hands" to others, in either case the authority is in the Church, and is God's authority.

The Holy Scriptures teach us that the state has this element of divine authority lodged in it. The thirteenth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans fully establishes this fact. Such declarations and exhortations as the following are unequivocal and explicit upon this point: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. ... For he [the civil ruler] is the minister of God to thee for good... he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience' sake. For, for this cause pay ye tribute also for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing."

If this be the relation of the civil government and the civil ruler to the divine government and the divine Ruler, how much more the Church, which is God's kingdom among men, uncircumscribed by political boundary, by nationality, race, or age! A kingdom, as described by the prophet Daniel (set up)

to be "an everlasting kingdom," one which is to break in pieces and subdue all others, and fill the whole world, making the civil powers but limited fragments of its own power, which, while separated from them, yet permeates and controls them. The most important of all institutions, the most universal and perpetual-the "New Jerusalem descending from God out of heaven," into which the glory of the nations is to be gathered, and into which kings are to bring their treasures -the power that is to subdue the world, overcome evil, develop holy character, train souls for heaven, and into which nothing shall enter "that defileth," and which is finally to be presented to God "a glorious Church without spot or wrinkle," must be under the dominion of a divine government, and have lodged in it an authority more than human, even the authority of God.

The Holy Scriptures nowhere formally state and define this authority in so many words, but they do most explicitly recognize and speak of it. St. Paul, in his first letter to Timothy, third chapter, speaking of the qualifications of a bishop, says, he must be "one who ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity. For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how can he take care of [rule] the Church of God?" Again, in the fifth chapter, he says, "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor." "Against an elder receive not an accusation but before two or three witnesses." "Them that sin, rebuke before all, that others may fear." "Lay hands suddenly upon no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins." "I charge thee before God, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things, without preferring one above another, doing nothing by partiality." All this teaches us that elders ruled; that Timothy, as an πOкожоç, by virtue of his office, if not his order, had still higher authority than they, and the apostle, by virtue of his apostleship, still higher authority than Timothy; and that this authority extended to the arrest, arraignment, trial, and expulsion from the Church of unworthy members and ministers. We are taught thereby that the early Church was under government, God having made them who were in authority "overseers to feed the flock," and not only to feed them, but to arraiyn, discipline, and expel the unworthy by a