Edward Gayer Andrews : a bishop of the Methodist Episcopal church

EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

FRANCIS J. McCONNELL

ffiolbg^ nf lEtb^ral Arts
Htbrarg

Fr.o.m...thfi...l.ibr.ar.y....Qf....Williarn..F.aij^f.ijeld
Warren, June 1930. "HX ■ ^ 'r,^

40950

W>^^^ , 3^ . t/c\J^A

BOSTON UKWEKS\T< -

Edward Gayer Andrews

A BISHOP OF THE
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH

By
FRANCIS J. McCONNELL ! '^^

BOSTON UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF LIBERAL ARTS

LIBRARY

New York: EATON & MAINS
Cincinnati: JENNINGS & GRAHAM

.ncLY£v/£.j t-dward Gavfe.T,bp.

Vi\\V\ciw^ Vax>n^^"ac\ V>ia^v-cv^

Copyright, 1909, by
EATON & MAINS.

^0^50

'By

TO

MRS. EDWARD G. ANDREWS

CONTENTS

PAGE

Introduction vii

I. The Years of Preparation.

I. Early Life 3

II. College 9

III. Teacher and Preacher 20

II. The Episcopal Career.

I. The Appointing Power 37

II. The Presiding Officer 54

III. The Judge 71

IV. The Resident Bishop 83

V. On the Administration Boards 102

VI. Traveling Through the Connection 115

VII. The Statesman 132

VIII. The Theological Counselor 145

IX. The Preacher 166

III. The Period of Retirement.

I. Life in Brooklyn 179

II. Tributes 189

IV* Papers and Sermons.

I. Address at Funeral Service of President William

McKinley 233

II. Baccalaureate Sermon at Cornell College, Mount

Vernon, Iowa 231

III. The Pastor and His Bible 240

IV. The New Testament Method of Law 270

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS was elected a
Bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church
in May, 1872. He was retired in May, 1904.
In the thirty-two years of his general superintendency
he attended over three hundred Annual Conferences
and met the other demands customarily made on a
Methodist Bishop. He suffered no periods of ill
health, nor was he interrupted in his work by serious
illness in his family. In the mere quantity of service
rendered the Church he must be ranked in a high place
with few, if any, peers.

During the thirty-two years from 1872 to 1904
the Methodist Episcopal Church underwent a great
expansion. The nation passed out from the crisis of
the Civil War to that movement westward which has
been one of the marvels of our time. The rapid
settlement of the great West has been of profound
significance for the United States and for humanity.
The transformation came almost wholly within the
period of Bishop Andrews's official career. When
the Bishop went to Iowa in 1872 to take up his res-
idence there, the Union Pacific Railroad had been built
only a little over three years. The Methodist Church
shared in the general movement of the nation. Where
the settler went the itinerant went. This phase of
church advance is but one. The missionary enter-
prises since 1872 have reached almost every land. In

X INTRODUCTION

the mere extent of territory touched by the Church
the period from 1872 on to the present has been
unique. In 1872 there were 76 Annual Conferences;
in 1904, 129; in 1872, 9,000 effective ministers; in
1904, 18,208; in 1872, 1,400,000 Church members;
in 1904, 3,029,560; in 1872, less than 1,300,000 Sun-
day school scholars; in 1904, 2,774,820; in 1872,
13,000 churches, valued at $57,000,000; in 1904,
28,213, valued at $131,303,120. The total gifts of
the Church for missions for the year closing with the
General Conference of 1872 were $661,000; for the
year before the Conference of 1904, about $1,500,000,
exclusive of the contributions by the women's organ-
izations. The total benevolent contributions of the
Church in 1872 were about $900,000; in 1903,
nearly $3,000,000.

The period from 1872 to 1904 witnessed the open-
ing of missions in Mexico, in western South America,
in western China, in Korea and in Japan. There
were no hospitals in 1872; in 1904 there were at
least twenty-five. The deaconess work, the Epworth
League, the Woman's Home Missionary Society, the
City Missionary Societies, the Board of Education —
all these were begun during the period between 1872
and 1904.

The years of Bishop Andrews's service were those
of transition for the Church. The Church became
more democratic. The laymen were admitted to the
General Conference in 1872 and advanced to increas-
ing power through the years. The Church became,
perhaps, more interested in intellectual problems. The
increase of educational institutions and the general

INTRODUCTION xi

attention given to religious problems led to critical
examination and reexamination of the foundations of
the Christian faith. When Bishop Andrews was
elected the doctrine of evolution was just beginning
to l)e taken seriously. John Fiske, perhaps the fore-
most teacher of philosophical evolution of his time in
America, did not publish his Outlines of Cosmic Phi-
losophy till 1874. The newer methods of biblical study
had made no widespread impression this side of the
Atlantic before the late seventies or early eighties.
Bishop Andrews lived through a period of theological
strain. Again, a vast swarm of social questions came
upon the Church during the years after 1872. In-
sistent demands were made that the Church take a
wider work upon itself. Salvation came to be insisted
upon not merely as a matter of the saving of the in-
dividual in his private relationships. The social and
industrial and political responsibilities of the church
member were pushed up into a new prominence.
Bishop Andrews came upon the scene at a time when
many of the most urgent questions of to-day had not
been heard of. He lived to see socialism, to mention
a single instance, clamoring for a hearing as a com-
petitor of the Church.

Through all these years Bishop Andrews was a
leader in the Board of Bishops. The episcopacy of
the Methodist Church does its work largely in super-
vision, and the changes taking place in the denomina-
tion have to be discussed in the Board in a practical
way possible nowhere else. In the multifarious dis-
cussions that the changing problems of the time forced
upon the Church Bishop Andrews wrought a work of

xii INTRODUCTION

incalculable value. During his episcopal career his
Church, like all others, was assailed by all sorts and
conditions of criticism. The only conclusive answer
to the criticism was the Church's justification of its
own existence by the effectiveness with which it did
its own work. In making the work of the Methodist
Church effective Bishop Andrews was a leader.

Edward Gayer Andrews did his great work for the
Church as a Bishop. He was a leader among the
Bishops. He was never widely known as anything
else than a Bishop. He was not elected for the sake
of rewarding him for anything he had already done,
though he had been a faithful and hard-working and
efficient pastor at the time of his election ; he was
elected just because he gave promise of making a good
Bishop. He did his work as a Bishop. He was not a
preacher merely; certainly not a lecturer, or a writer
of books, or an organizer of institutions. Other
Bishops will be remembered for their oratory, or for
their patriotic services, or for their books. Edward
G. Andrews will be remembered as a Bishop — as use-
ful a Bishop as the Church has had.

I

THE YEARS OF PREPARATION

I

EARLY LIFE

EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS was born at
New Hartford, New York, on August 7,
1825. New Hartford is about four miles
from Utica, on the line of the New York, Ontario and
Western Railroad, though, of course, there was no rail-
road for many years after the above date. Conditions
during the years following 1825 were primitive but not
at all of the backwoods. Central New York was as
truly then as to-day on a great highway, for the travel
from New York and from New England to the West
followed the line of the Mohawk. In the year 1825
the Erie Canal was finished and the opening of the
thoroughfare immediately touched all central New
York with new life. Feeder canals were built, reach-
ing to the main line from every possible point of ap-
proach, and along the streams which would furnish
water power mills sprang up in great numbers. Prob-
ably no industrial enterprise in our national career had
more immediate effect than the opening of the Erie
Canal; and during the time that the new industrial
vigor was beginning to pulse in increasing power along
the line which has since become one of the greatest
highways that the world has ever known, Edward G.
Andrews grew through boyhood to young manhood.
There was something about the life of those stirring
days which brought youth to maturity quickly. Bishop

4 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

Andrews never had the marks of the frontier upon
him. His early life was not passed as was the early
life of so many Methodist leaders, in a cruel and
bitter struggle in pioneer conditions. His early sur-
roundings, crude as they were, were suggestive of in-
dustrial and commercial leadership rather than of
battle with the forests and struggle with crops in the
"clearings," There was possibly less of the romantic
about the early years of Edward G. Andrews than
about the opening of the career of Matthew Simpson
and of Randolph S. Foster, both of whom saw some-
thing of the frontier ; but there seems a kind of fitness
in the conditions in which young Andrews was
born, as we think how closely his life was afterward
connected with the business and practical side of
church administration. Bishop Andrews had talent
little short of positive genius for the practical han-
dling of church enterprises. Quite likely the early
surroundings had little to do with the development of
this particular gift, but there is at least a sort of
appropriateness in thinking of this leader of the
Church's business coming out of an early life which
was quick with the beginnings of industrial enterprises
whose significance we are just now learning rightly
to estimate.

Incidents of that early day in the life of Edward G.
Andrews have not been chronicled for us in large num-
ber, but we know enough to see clearly the kind of
home out of which he came. Judge Charles Andrews,
of Syracuse, a brother of the Bishop, writes as
follows :

"My brother Edward was the fifth in a family of

EARLY LIFE 5

eleven children, all of whom except one (who died in
infancy) lived to reach maturity. The father, George
Andrews, died at the age of eighty and the mother,
Polly Andrews, died in 1886 at the age of eighty-nine.
My earliest recollections are connected with the family
home at New York Mills, in Oneida County. My
father for many years was superintendent of the Burr-
stone Mill at that place, and had a salary of one
thousand dollars a year, and upon this the family was
maintained and the children educated, until in 1839
my father, having purchased a farm, removed to Onon-
daga County. Both parents were members of the
Methodist Episcopal Church. They took an active
part in the affairs of the Church and were deeply in-
terested in the religious training of their children.
The household was emphatically a Christian house-
hold. In the earlier days there was a strictness which
partook somewhat of Puritan austerity, and discipline
was enforced, which, at a later time, yielded to what I
think was a broader and wiser view of Christian lib-
erty. But love ruled the hearts of our parents in deal-
ing with their children, and the children were respon-
sive to its touch and submitted without question to the
parental discipline.

"My brother Edward was, from his earliest years,
peculiarly susceptible to religious impressions. My
mother had an unusual gift in prayer. She searched
the Scriptures. She was familiar with their imagery
and she accepted the Christian faith with a confidence
never obscured by doubt or question. Her prayers
were the outpouring of a deeply religious spirit. In
them were commingled adoration, supplication, and

6 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

thanksgiving addressed with undoubting faith to Him
who she believed was able and willing to hear and
answer and guide.

"My brother had the same gift. I have always
thought that his prayers in their adaptation to meet
the needs and the aspirations of human souls, and in
their uplifting power, have seldom been equaled. They
greatly contributed, in my judgment, to the success
of his ministry, and to the spiritual power which at-
tended it. The influence of his early training, and
especially of his mother's character and life, was,
I think, an abiding and prominent factor in his spirit-
ual development. My brother entered upon his min-
istry with no theological training in schools. How
early he came to the determination to devote his life
to the Christian ministry I am not able to say. It was,
doubtless, before he graduated from college. Soon
after his graduation he came to the farm and in a
short time received an appointment to a church in
Morrisville, a small village in Madison County, New
York. I remember but as yesterday the spring morn-
ing when, mounted upon 'Selim,' a horse which an
uncle had given him, with his saddlebags behind him,
he left the parental home to take up his work at
Morrisville. It was not, humanly speaking, a brilliant
opening of a career. But he saw no lion in his path.
He believed that he was called to preach the gospel,
and his buoyant and hopeful nature and his unwaver-
ing sense of duty enabled him to brush aside difficulties
which might have discouraged a young man of an-
other mold."

Dr. J. B. Foote, of Syracuse, knew Mrs. Andrews

EARLY LIFE 7

while she was living in Syracuse in the later years of
her life and writes as follows :

"During the years that I was presiding elder I called
frequently at the home of Mrs. Andrews, the mother
of Judge Andrews and of Bishop Andrews.

"It was a home that interested me very much. The
husband was at that time treasurer of the Syracuse
Gas Company. The mother was the center and charm
of the household circle, a woman of earnest, intelli-
gent, religious character, thoroughly helping those
within her influence. On one occasion when I was
calling the conversation turned upon her children. I
remarked upon the lives of usefulness of her two sons.
She said : T will tell you what I have never told to any
but two or three in my life. \\'hen my two sons were
little children they were lying on the bed with me one
day. There came over me such a sense of responsibil-
ity in regard to their training and preparation for their
life work that I was overwhelmed at the thought, and
struggled long in prayer with God that he would give
me wisdom to guide their young lives in such a way
as to make them useful men. Assurance came to me
with extraordinary force, and while I watched the
development of their characters as they were growing
up I was sure that my prayers had been answered. I
am thankful that while my life is far spent my children
may yet live to be useful and influential and of great
good in the world.' "

In his later years Bishop Andrews spoke with ever-
increasing tenderness and respect both of his father
and his mother. Though there was a touch of austerity
in the early training, the Bishop always spoke of his

8 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

early years as if they were a fond memory to him.
There was one experience in his childhood of which
he used in his later years to tell with amusement and
yet with something of protest against the view of the
child life which made the incident possible. Dr.
Charles G. Finney, of Oberlin, married a sister of Mr.
George Andrews and used to visit the home when
young Edward G. was a boy. Dr. Finney, it will be
remembered, used to make his public prayers occa-
sions for the rebuke of those who seemed to the worthy
Oberlin leader to need correction. It was reported of
Dr. Finney that once in Oberlin he prayed for a mem-
ber of his faculty in words substantially these : "Thou

seest, O Lord, Professor . Thou knowest he

knows more than all the rest of us, but, O Lord, he is
so lazy!" Then followed a petition for the relief of
the laziness. Dr. Finney's petitions at the Andrews
home were marked by the same directness, or indirect-
ness, whichever it may be called. Edward's sister
Mary was once visiting at Dr. Finney's home in Ober-
lin. The next morning at prayers the good doctor
prayed : *'0 Lord, bless Mary. Thou seest what a
vain girl she is. Look at her hair, all in curls."
Bishop Andrews never seemed to think that this was
especially efficacious Christian nurture for a young
child. In the same connection it may be said that
with one part of John Wesley's career Bishop Andrews
never had any patience, namely, his conduct of his
Kingswood school for boys. The Bishop used to say
that he found it very hard to be charitable with John
Wesley for his total ignorance of the child nature.

II

COLLEGE

THE atmosphere of the Andrews home was
that of deep and genuine culture. The
parents knew the vakie of education and
encouraged their children to get the most possible in
the way of intellectual training. Edward was given
an academic equipment at Cazenovia Seminary, and
in 1844 started for Wesleyan LTniversity at Middle-
town, Connecticut. He was then nineteen years of
age and the trip to JNIiddletown was, perhaps, as long
a journey as he had ever taken, though it seems that
he had made a visit to New York city earlier in 1844,
where, oddly enough, the sight which seems to have
impressed him most was the meeting of the General
Conference in that historic session, out of whose heated
debates came the splitting of the Methodist Church
into a northern and southern section.

One little incident which occurred on the way to
Middletown is illuminating as showing the refinement
of feeling of young Mr. Andrews. A part of the
journey was made by canal boat, and on the boat the
prospective matriculant fell in with two other youths
bound likewise for Middletown. Young Andrews was
somewhat shocked at the undignified conduct of these
two boys, destined to be his friends throughout the
college course and throughout after life. It seems that
the boys would take advantage of every stop of the

9

lo EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

boat to buy watermelons in great number, so that the
entire trip became a sort of gorging with melons on the
part of these two youngsters. Mr. Andrews seemed
to think this constituted a very serious reflection on
the breeding of the young men. We are not informed
that he himself disliked watermelons, especially when
they had been honestly bought and paid for, as might
not have been the case with modern college youths, but
there is an unanalyzable something about this story
which makes it entirely credible to anyone who ever
knew Bishop Andrews. Every time the names of
either of these Wesleyan men were suggested to the
Bishop in after years, though he admired the men very
greatly, he could not help recalling the abandon and
gusto of their enjoyment of the melons.

Wesleyan University was about fifteen years old
when Edward G. Andrews entered its sophomore class.
The material assets of the university consisted of two
buildings, erected originally for the "American Liter-
ary, Scientific, and Military Academy," and turned
over to the university when the academy was removed
to Norwich, Vermont, and an endowment of little
more than forty thousand dollars. Six per cent on
forty thousand dollars is twenty-four hundred dollars,
a sum probably in excess of the net return from the en-
dowment fund in those early days, and the fees of the
students were not high enough to make the position
of professor in the new university one to be greatly
desired for financial reasons. One asset Wesleyan had
then, however, as she has now — one of the fairest
sites for a college that can be found in America. Beau-
tiful as was that central New York countrv from

COLLEGE II

which Edward Andrews came, the view of hill
and valley and river at Middletown made an impres-
sion upon his sensitive mind which the years never
effaced. In our later day we have come to see how
much the natural surroundings of a college have to
do with impressing the minds of college youth ; and
if nature has not been propitious, wise college officials
seek the services of the landscape architect. Beauti-
ful for situation was, and is, Wesleyan University,
and the beauty is part of the force which binds the
hearts of the alumni so loyally to the school.

The curriculum of Wesleyan in 1844 was not elab-
orate. The only way in which the elective principle
came into play was in the fact that the student could
elect whether he would come to college at all or not,
but once at the scholastic table he had to take what
was set before him. The elective system as we see it
at work in American colleges to-day certainly has great
advantages, but we must not forget the advantages
which were to be found under the old system. As we
look over the subjects of study in the Wesleyan of that
day we are impressed by the stiffness and rigor of the
course. There was not much, but what there was was
hard. Even in those days of beginnings the training
at Wesleyan was very likely as good as could be found
in any college in the country ; and if we are tempted
to smile at the meagerness of the intellectual fare, we
must remember that all the colleges of that day reflected
the general ironlike sternness of the time. College
courses did not give wide range of choice, but life it-
self in those days did not give wide range of choice.
The colleges justified their existence by making men

12 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

hard thinkers in a time which demanded hard think-
ing. The sports, the social pleasures, the intellectual
luxuries all came in a later day. They would have
been out of place in that day. No' doubt the elective
system of our time makes it possible for some youths
who are by nature intellectually averse to hard study
to acquire quite a respectable degree of intellectual
training through following their own bent. In those
days intellectual training was not intended for those
who were unwilling to do disagreeable tasks. The
intellectual tasks of the time had to be faced by men
who would go at them directly in spite of their dis-
agreeableness. The country, new as it was, was
already in the throes of a great conflict. Voices from
the outside world which carried a prophecy of ap-
proaching strife reached the students in their class-
rooms. President Olin had been a foremost debater
in that famous General Conference upon which
young Andrews had looked in 1844, and had, in
fact, delivered the most masterly address upon
the differences between North and South which
was made at that meeting. The students were
impressed to a greater degree than to-day, per-
haps, with the seriousness of the intellectual and
moral struggle which lay before them in the world
beyond graduation day. There was no attempt
on the part of college leaders to make study
appear as play. Study was study, and hard study
at that. The elective system is, no doubt, a great
factor in alluring students into the intellectual
land of promise, and offers fine opportunities for
the capture of the promised land by easy flank

COLLEGE 13

marches without the need of much heavy fighting;
but our admiration for the new system ought not to
Wind our eyes to the intellectual directness with which
the students of the old Wesleyan days were taught
to face even the toughest problems. To be sure, the
old system was not good for some minds, but it was
very good indeed for some others. The intellect of
Bishop Andrews in mature life showed an astounding
power of prolonged concentration on the most irk-
some and uninteresting problems. His ability to
perform hard, disagreeable work hour after hour and
day after day must in part, at least, be attributed
to the training at Wesleyan.

Wesleyan, as we have said, was only about fifteen
years old when Edward Andrews entered as a student,
and yet even in his time the college had begun that
long line of mighty traditions which have been so
effective in molding the lives of her students. ' For
example, the college still moved under the spell of
the life of Wilbur Fisk, the first president, elected
in 1 83 1. When Edward Andrews reached Wesleyan,
Wilbur Fisk had been dead five years, but the power
of the departed leader was still upon the school.
Wilbur Fisk seems to have been one of the rare
spirits of Methodism. A graduate of Brown Uni-
^'^ersity, he added the graces of the saint to the accom-
plishments of the scholar, and the self-sacrificing spirit
of the true Christian to a charm of manner naturally
captivating. Dr. Fisk was elected a Bishop in 1836,
but declined to serve on the ground that his duty lay
with Wesleyan. Edward Andrews heard much dur-
ing his college days of the power of Wilbur Fisk and

14 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

of the very "atmosphere of heaven" which pervaded
his sermons. That the influence on the young col-
legian must have been marked and abiding would
appear from the reference to Wilbur Fisk in Bishop
Andrews's address at the Wesley Bicentennial at
Wesleyan in 1903.

Another mighty personal force which touched the
life of the students at Wesleyan during the days from
1844 to 1847 was Stephen Olin. From all accounts
it must have been somewhat of a liberal education
just to look at Stephen Olin. He must have been a
veritable giant in personal appearance, and his dignity
of bearing suggested the constant quantities. He
had a frame like a "Hercules," one admirer writes,
and yet his bodily vigor, massive as it was, had been
impaired by the intensity of his intellectual labors,
though he seems to have been more of a thinker than
a scholar. His power in public address must have
been remarkable even in that day when forceful public
speakers were quite common. There was a peculiar
intensity about the public speech of the forties which
produced emotional effects in the hearers the like of
which we seldom see to-day. The fact that the
audiences were composed of persons who had less
opportunity for reading, and for the development of
the critical faculty than we have to-day may have
had something to do with the production of these
effects, but quite likely the personality of the speakers
had more. We are told in the published life of Dr.
Olin that on one occasion he spoke at a public meeting
called in Middletown to create sentiment in favor of
building what was afterward known as the Air-Line

COLLEGE 15

Railroad. His theme was, "The Moral and Social
Influence of Modern Facilities of Locomotion." The
biographer states that l^efore he had been speaking
many minutes many of his hearers were in tears ! All
this seems very strange to us. We do not see any-
thing to weep about in a public meeting in favor of a
railroad, but we must not misunderstand the signifi-
cance of this incident. It did not mean that Stephen
Olin was given to telling pathetic stories. When we
read of audiences ^'melted to tears" in those days we
can make no greater mistake than to imagine that
the emotion came out of pathos, as we ordinarily
think of pathos in public speech. Dr. Olin produced
these effects through his own sense of the sublime
and magnificent and through his ability to arouse
others to a like sense. There was something in the
very momentum of his thought, something in its
sheer immensity, which had the same effect on his
hearers that the sight of a glorious landscape or the
rendering of a splendid oratorio always has upon fine-
grained natures. His noted address before the Gen-
eral Conference in 1844 was the utterance of a states-
man, and yet its immediate effect was to move the
Conference with the surges of irresistible emotion.
It would be hard to overestimate the sweep of Olin's
mental power, or his ability to compress into a single
statement a summation of a line of argument. There
are scattered throughout the journals which he kept
on his tours to Europe passages like that on "Hun-
gary the shield of Europe," which show great eco-
nomic and political insight. In the realm of religious
thinking he was at his best. He at times complained

i6 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

that he had so little definite training in theological
thinking, but very possibly his lack of formal theolog-
ical discipline made him more effective, in that it forced
him to bring into play for religious purposes the
great resources of his general knowledge and obser-
vation. When the mass of his thought was fired by
religious fervor he was irresistible. Bishop Andrews
used to refer especially to a baccalaureate sermon
preached before the class of 1845 on the text: "But
put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision
for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof." Bishop
Andrews said of this "most impressive sermon" :
"Few that heard it would attempt to describe the lofty
passion, the wide vision, the force, the majesty, the
divine inspiration of that deliverance. Few that heard
it could evade the sweep and authority of some of
its later sentences."

We can get some idea of the enterprise of men like
Fisk and Olin when we think of their journeys to
Europe. Fisk was in Europe at the time of his
election to the episcopacy and Olin went abroad at
least twice, once going as far as the Holy Land. On
the second tour the trip home from England occupied
thirty-six days, a rather satisfactory passage for those
times. The dangers, uncertainties, and hardships of
travel in the thirties and forties give us some hint of
the enterprise of these men in their eagerness to see
and know the world.

The students were brought into close contact with
the faculty members. The college government was
distinctly paternal. The college catalogue of that day
informs parents that the pocket money for their sons

COLLEGE 17

.should be limited in amount in any case, and that it
should be sent to some member of the faculty who
would pay it over to the boy according to his legiti-
mate needs. "For this service," the catalogue goes
on to say, "the professor will charge a small commis-
sion." The government of the school moved accord-
ing to high principles, with at times personal
reenforcement from the president which brought the
principles altogether out of the realm of the abstract.
Bishop Andrews used to tell of a moving appeal
which Stephen Olin once made to the boys for better
behavior. "The Almighty is grieved by this mis-
conduct," said the Doctor in a tone of deep pathos.
And then he added with tremendous emphasis : "And
I zvon't have it."

That was the day when students derived most of
their inspiration from close contact with men who
might fittingly have been called educational monarchs.
In a later day the inspiration of college life comes
more especially from the democratic influence which
works where hundreds, and in some cases thousands,
of young minds are met together supposedly with a
common educational aim, and there is less opportunity
for direct intercourse with professors. Something
of the kingly power of Bishop Andrews must have
come from association with the intellectual royal
minds of early Wesleyan days.

The beneficial influences were not wholly from the
faculty, however. The class of 1847 was not large
but it contained men of force, like Professor Alex-
ander Winchell, afterward noted as a geologist.
There were some close friendships formed also' which

i8 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

lasted through the years. Dr. Joseph E. King, now of
Fort Edward Institute, Fort Edward, New York,
came to be an intimate friend and companion, as did
also Dr. A. B, Hyde, now of Denver. Dr. Hyde
says : "Bishop Andrews and I came from the same
region. His noble father did business with my own
father. Our contact came in 1844 at Wesleyan. His
personality charmed me, and having many traditions
in common, we blended like drops of water. Together
we strolled, swam, debated, and even went out
preaching." Dr. Daniel Steele was a member of the
class of 1848, but he, too, was thrown in contact with
Edward Andrews. "In 1844 when I entered Wes-
leyan University I first saw E. G. Andrews. We were
not classmates, his class being that of 1847 and mine
of 1848. We were members of the same public
debating society, for at that time the two public
societies were flourishing, though there were signs
of dissolution through the competition of the Greek
letter secret fraternities. This President Olin depre-
cated. These numerous sodalities each aimed at some
special excellence. Two of them aimed at high scholar-
ship and were rivals in the endeavor to count the larger
number of valedictorians wearing their badges. Both
of them *cultivated' Andrews as a member who
would do them honor. But the society which regarded
literary superiority, rhetorical and oratorical ability,
as the most worthy object succeeded in enrolling
Andrews in its 'Mystical Seven' where afterward
was the name of Henry W. Warren and that of
William F. Warren. Andrews was beloved both by
faculty and students. He was manly and amiable.

COLLEGE 19

worthy and wise, and, above all, had a cheerful and
attractive piety. In his senior year he was the college
class leader at whose feet we all delighted to sit."

It was at Middletown also that Edward Andrews
met Gilbert Haven, Theodore L. Cuyler dated his
acquaintance with Edward Andrews from a chance
visit to Wesleyan in 1845.

Ill

TEACFIER AND PREACHER

IT is the primary aim of this volume to treat of
the career of Edward G. Andrews as a Bishop.
We may be pardoned then for not going far
into detail in our treatment of the years from 1847
to 1872. We give only enough space to these years
to show how the various experiences played a part in
leading up to the election of 1872, and to suggest the
part these years played in fitting Edward G. Andrews
for his after work.

The class of 1847 was graduated in August. It
seems that in the fall of that year Edward Andrews
called on his friend A. B. Hyde, at Cazenovia, and
showed him an Oneida Conference set of appoint-
ments with Morrisville Circuit marked "to be sup-
plied," and remarked that he himself was to be the
supply. It was to this circuit that he rode away
from home on horseback, imprinting upon the mind
of his brother Charles that picture of which the Judge
writes in a previous chapter. The date at which the
future Bishop had reached his decision to enter the
ministry we do not know. Under the deeply religious
influences of his boyhood home he had joined the
church at the age of ten, and quite likely the con-
viction that he ought to preach came naturally as a
sort of flowering out of his religious experience. At
any rate, he was graduated in August and was on his

TEACHER AND PREACHER 21

way to the Morrlsville Circuit within a few weeks.
In the following July he was regularly admitted into
the Oneida Conference at Owego, ordained deacon
by Bishop Janes and appointed to Hamilton and
Leesville. He must have shown from the very begin-
ning the qualities which were so marked in after
years — the singular charm of manner and the perfect
sincerity which won all hearts — for when John P.
Newman followed Edward G. Andrews in this
appointment the impression left by Andrews upon the
community after his two years' service was so strong
that Newman heard nothing for some weeks except
the superior graces of his predecessor. Newman took
a characteristically original step in dealing with the
praise of his predecessor. He himself in the course
of a sermon delivered a eulogy on the work of Edward
G. Andrews so complete that nothing further was left
to be said.

In 1850-51, the young preacher was sent to Coopers-
town, where the success at Hamilton was repeated.
James Fenimore Cooper was living at Cooperstown
when young Andrews went there. The new minister
called on the novelist one day and the latter's recep-
tion revealed a trait in the life of the future Bishop
which those who knew him best will appreciate. It
wa^ characteristic of Edward G. Andrews that he
was seldom deceived as to the spirit of the man who
happened to be talking to him, though the man himself
might not always realize the completeness of the
Andrews insight. On this occasion Cooper evidently
took the new minister for an unsophisticated youth of
necessarily limited knowledge. A large picture of

22 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

the forum at Rome hung on the wall of Cooper's
study. Cooper called the young minister to his side
and gave him a well-meant but patronizing discourse
on the picture and on Rome. Andrews enjoyed the
lecture, but for reasons which the lecturer did not
suspect. In after years the Bishop said : "From Mr.
Cooper's remarks it soon became clear to me that I
knew more about Rome than he did."

While living at Cooperstown Edward Andrews
was married to Miss Susan Hotchkiss, of Cheshire,
Connecticut. Shortly after marriage the young couple
were removed to Stockbridge for another pastorate
of two years. It will be remembered that in the
fifties the pastoral term in the Methodist Church was
limited to two years. We are interested to note that
all the Andrews pastorates except twO' were for the
full pastoral term, and in those two the desire of the
people was that the minister should stay for the full
term. The work always went on quietly but effec-
tively. There does not seem to have been anything
spectacular or striking in these early pastorates. The
churches grew legitimately and normally. Coopers-
town had sixty-one members when Edward Andrews
went there and eighty-seven when he left. This
record seems to show about the usual rate of increase
under his ministrations.

One thing the young minister did not know — he
did not understand the proper use of his voice. He
preached very energetically, so energetically, in fact,
that his voice gave out under the strain. This does
not mean that he took to screaming in the pulpit ; per-
haps if he had screamed, the strain on the throat

TEACHER AND PREACHER 23

would have been easier. The trouble seems to have
been an overtension which the preacher had not yet
learned to control. The difficulty was so serious that
Bishops Simpson and Janes advised tlie acceptance
of a position as teacher in the Oneida Conference
Seminary, and thither Andrews went in 1854. An
opening in the presidency of the Mansfield Female
College took him to Ohio a few months later, but
after an absence of only a year he was called back
to the seminary at Cazenovia to be the successor of
Dr. Henry Bannister. This was in 1856. Andrews
had left the pastorate in 1854 and did not return to
it again until 1864,

As a teacher Edward G. Andrews belonged to the
good, old-fashioned school of personal inspirers. His
career does something to justify the theory of that
wise principal who said in the course of his search
for a new instructor, 'T am looking for a man first
and a scholar afterward." We are not concerned to
ask what Principal Andrews taught. We know that
his training had been accurate and thorough for his
time, and that the time was happily free from the
overemphasis on specialization which we see to-day,
a specialization which does not always discern the
difference between true university method and true
college method, and sometimes not even the difference
between university method and secondary-school
method. The professors in those days could teach
any one of half a dozen branches, or teach all half
dozen, for that matter, so that not much can be said
for their special knowledge of any one field, but it
must be remembered that they were teachers and not

24 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

specialists. The curriculum at Oneida fifty years ago
would, no doubt, look rather meager to the youth at
preparatory school to-day, but youngsters were taught
to think in those days as truly as now ; they were as
certainly put on the path to right knowledge then as
now; and as certainly caught the fine spirit of enthu-
siasm for the best things which should be the chief
asset that any boy or girl carries away from a
secondary school. The young people who came in
contact with Principal Andrews never escaped the
inspiration which naturally came from him. There
were, moreover, a directness of method and a large-
ness of view of educational matters which made the
principal of Oneida Seminary rank high as a leader
among the educators of the central part of New York.
We hear of Principal Andrews as a very frequent
speaker at gatherings of teachers.

There was another phase of the work of Principal
Andrews which brought him to prominence. We refer
to his success in getting the money for his seminary.
Dr. A. B. Hyde says of those days : "His was a double
task — the order of the school and its outward support.
He bowed between the burdens, oiling his task with
cheer and even humor." We can well imagine how
difificult a task it was to carry on the financial work
of the seminary, but the work was done with absolute
dignity and with complete success. The channels of
confidence in the school were kept open. The funda-
mental element in the success of Principal Andrews
was the confidence throughout central New York
that, as Dr. Hyde puts it, the pupils of Principal
Andrews were "under the dew of Hermon."

TEACHER AND PREACHER 25

The eight or more years at Cazenovia passed away
as quickly and yet as uneventfully as years of success-
ful school administration usually do. The principal
had so grown in the confidence of the members of
the Oneida Conference that in 1864 they elected him
a delegate to the General Conference, which met at
Philadelphia on May 2. The Conference at that time
was composed of only two hundred and sixteen dele-
gates, but his presence in the body gave Edward G.
Andrews an acquaintance with the Methodist Church
which he could have acquired in no other way. He
was thrown into contact with such men as John
Lanahan, Jesse T. Peck, William L. Harris, William
Nast, Lorenzo D. McCabe, Granville Moody, Elijah
H. Pilcher, Calvin Kingsley, Isaac W. Wiley, David
Sherman, Joseph Cummings, Miner Raymond, Ran-
dolph S. Foster, Davis W. Clark, John W. Lindsay,
Daniel Curry, John Miley, Robert M. Hatfield, George
W. Woodruff, Edward Thomson, Joseph M. Trimble,
Frederick Merrick, John P. Durbin, Luke Hitchcock,
Thomas M. Eddy, Thomas H. Lynch, A. J. Kynett,
George Peck. The Conference was not too large to
prevent every man from coming at least to slight
acquaintance with every other.

The name of Edward G. Andrews appears but few
times on the records of that Conference, but the few
appearances are significant. He voted No on a motion
to lay on the table the following resolution : "Resolved,
that the presiding elders be elected by ballot, without
debate in the Annual Conference, on the nomination
of the presiding Bishop." He tried, without success,
to introduce into the report of the pastor to the

26 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

Quarterly Conference a better plan for keeping
track of discontinued probationers. As secretary of
the Committee on Lay Delegation he signed, perhaps
drafted, the report which approved lay representation
in the General Conference as soon as the Church
might approve. Of more interest is the fact that the
name of Edward G. Andrews appears as a member
of the Committee on Slavery. The report of the com-
mittee is uncompromising. The causes of slavery,
its effect on the entire life of the nation, the part
of the Church in its removal, the approval of the
national policy — all these considerations are set forth
briefly and yet with telling effect. The temper of the
committee and of the Committee on the State of the
Church, though Dr. Andrews did not belong to this
latter committee, no doubt well reflected the spirit
of the principal of Oneida Seminary. An air of
restrained fury breathes through the reports of the
committees, fury which was that of an exalted
patriotism. It was in response to a communication
from this General Conference that Abraham Lincoln
wrote back :

"In response to your address allow me to attest the
accuracy of its historical statements, indorse the
sentiments it expresses, and thank you in the nation's
name for the sure promise it gives.

"Nobly sustained as the government has been by
all the Churches, I would utter nothing which might
in the least appear invidious against any. Yet with-
out this it may fairly be said that the Methodist
Episcopal Church, not less devoted than the best, is
by its greater numbers the most important of all. It

TEACHER AND PREACHER 27

is no fault in others that the Methodist Church sends
more soldiers to the field, more nurses to the hospitals,
and more prayers to heaven than any. God bless the
Methodist Church ! bless all the Churches ! and blessed
be God who, in this our great trial, giveth us the
Churches !"

If Edward G. Andrews was in his place on the
nineteenth of May, 1864, he heard the reading of the
above letter, now become a classic.

This may be as appropriate a place as any to
speak of the feeling of Bishop Andrews about the
war. He shared the patriotic spirit of the North.
He felt and spoke very intensely. In the pastorate
at Stamford, to which he came in 1864, he once cor-
rected in semi-public conversation some statements of a
Southerner with a pungency that the Southerner quite
likely never forgot. To the end of his life he was sus-
picious of attempts to justify the course of the South
in 1861. Histories of the Civil War period written
from the Southern standpoint never received more than
scant praise from him. And yet he had none of the
undiscriminating attitude toward the problems of the
South which vitiated the thinking of some of his North-
ern brethren. It is no secret that he cherished very few
illusions concerning the work of the Negroes, though
he wrought as faithfully as any to help them upward.
His rather doubtful attitude toward the white work
of our Church in the South is also well known.

In 1864 Dr. Andrews felt that his voice had re-
covered sufficiently to allow him to return to the reg-
ular speaking of the ministry, and accepted a call to
Middletown, Connecticut, in the New York East

28 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

Conference. By a turn in the tide of affairs in the
Cabinet Dr. Andrews was sent to Stamford, Con-
necticut, instead. Stamford had no knowledge of Dr.
Andrews, as Dr. Andrews had none of Stamford,
and the appointment there was embarrassing to him.
The work, however, proved as successful as those who
put Dr. Andrews there felt that it would be. Stam-
ford was a leading church in the New York East Con-
ference, and had in its membership some of the fore-
most laymen of Methodism. Dr. Andrews was suc-
cessful in winning and holding marked influence over
these laymen. At the close of three years at Stamford
he was sent to Sands Street, Brooklyn, and from there
to Saint John's, Brooklyn. He was starting on his
second year at Seventh Avenue, now Grace Church,
Brooklyn, at the time of his election to the episcopacy.
Of all these pastorates in Brooklyn it must be said
that they showed Dr. Andrews to be an unusual suc-
cess as what was coming to be spoken of as an "all-
around" minister. He was an attractive preacher in
a city which boasted such preachers as Beecher and
Storrs. He was a winsome pastor in a city and in a
neighborhood which knew the work of Theodore L.
Cuyler, one of the greatest pastors America has ever
produced. It used to be said of Dr. Cuyler as a tribute
and not as a disparagement that when a strange family
arrived anywhere within his parish he went into the
house "with the goods." And in addition to ability
as preacher and pastor, Dr. Andrews was recognized
as a wise administrator of church problems. He
aimed at the solid upbuilding of his congregation.
For example, he once found a new book which said

TEACHER AND PREACHER 29

some tilings which he wished to say to his people.
He took the book into the pulpit one Sunday morning
and omitted the sermon for the sake of reading to
the people from the book. Anything which would
really build up his hearers was to him worth while.
He was much more concerned in building his church
than in adding to his own reputation.

Among the last to view the face of Bishop Andrews
before his body was carried from the funeral services
at the New York Avenue Church of Brooklyn to the
resting place at Syracuse was a man eighty-three years
of age, who up to the age of forty-five had been a Ro-
man Catholic, utterly ignorant of the Scriptures. This
man had in December of 1869 almost accidentally
strayed within the doors of Saint John's Church. Dr.
Andrews preached. The man came again. On the
evening of January 12, 1870, Dr. Andrews asked if
any would come forward to the altar for prayer.
This man and his wife came. That night he conse-
crated himself to the cause of the Lord. Dr. Andrews
provided for the new beginner's instruction and guid-
ance, putting him in the way of solid upbuilding in
the Christian life. When, thirty-eight years later, the
man walked down the aisle of the church at that
funeral service to view for the last time the face of the
friend who had led him into the kingdom, he had been
for thirty years one of the most effective church and
Sunday school workers in Brooklyn, with a wide
reputation for religious insight and sound knowledge
of the problems of the spiritual life. There had been
nothing spectacular about the beginning of his reli-
gious life. The advance had been uniform and lasting.

30 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

While this man claims not to have attained to any-
thing extraordinary, his success has really been extraor-
dinary. He gives the credit for his awakening and
for his wise direction to the essentials of the Christian
life to Edward G. Andrews. Others rise with similar
testimony. The work of Dr. Andrews in the pastor-
ate was quiet but effective and lasting.

Dr. Buckley, in an editorial in The Christian Advo-
cate, writes as follows :

"To estimate fully the gifts of Dr. Andrews for
the pastorate of a family church with a permanent
congregation, it is necessary either to have been a
member of one of his churches or congregations or to
have succeeded him in the pastorate. The latter
privilege was thoroughly enjoyed by the writer at
Stamford, Connecticut. His sermons were carefully
cogitated, written in large part, but not slavishly
delivered. To the last he used marked divisions, but
not too many. Something of the nature of a perora-
tion was uttered at the end of the discussion of each
division, and at the close he summed up like a lawyer
before a jury. He was a highly oratorical preacher,
having an unction, not wholly of feelings, nor of
words, but chiefly of ideas. There was a total absence
of slang. Having heard him many times, we never
noticed an empty adjective, a tautological sentence,
or a childish appeal to the sensibilities. All was clear,
convincing, lofty, and moving. His preaching was
quite independent of the number before him. On
torrid summer nights, in Saint John's Church, when
many of his parishioners had removed to their country
houses, and many others remained at home because of

TEACHER AND PREACHER 31

the fervent heat, he would preach as earnestly and
appealingly, making a plea for instant decision, as if
in a winter service, surrounded by weeping inquirers.

"As the physical condition is essential to the
highest public expression, though always animated,
sometimes he was less so than at others. On not
infrequent occasions it seemed as though his heart
was struggling to manifest itself visibly to the hearers.

"In pastoral intercourse he performed social duties
in a courtly and ingratiating manner. It was delight-
ful to see him among his old parishioners. The
business devolving upon a pastor is sometimes very
trying. He was attentive to all, and those that came
after him had no trouble with the records and found
a guide to the houses of his parishioners.

"In the highest duty, that of leading souls out of
the darkness of doubt and fear into the light of
religious confidence, he united personal help with
pastoral instruction. Many a time the prescription
which would not have been noticed in the pulpit was
given in private, and as often that which would not
have been impressive in conversation became illumi-
nated in the pulpit and powerful when the hearer, who
had not been relieved in conversation, in the 'beaten
oil' prepared afterward and distilled in the pulpit,
recognized his need supplied. In bereavement his
silence was frequently better than some men's speech.
He was a comforter, hence all his parishioners clung to
him forever."

The General Conference of 1872 met in Brooklyn,
and though Dr. Andrews had been in the New York
East Conference only eight years he was present as a

32 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

delegate. More important even than this, he was
one of the Brooklyn Committee to provide for the
entertainment of the Conference. It sounds almost
like a reflection on Dr. Andrews to say that his work
on this committee helped make him Bishop, but it is
really a great compliment to believe that his work as
a committeeman led the delegates to think so highly
of him as to vote for him as one of their chief pastors.
The delegates saw his tactfulness, his gentlemanliness,
his amazing gift for detail in this work as they could
have seen it nowhere else. If they had not known
of him before, his work prompted them to ask
questions ; and if they were already asking questions
about him, his kindliness and tact in the performance
of a difficult task were illuminating and suggestive.
The committeeman who could deal so kindly with
brethren who had crotchety peculiarities as to keep
them in good humor seemed like a suitable choice for
a position which would require illimitable patience
and charity. And when, joined to this power to deal
with details, the delegates found large knowledge of
the Church, firm grasp on constitutional principles,
and transparently sincere piety, the result was not
long in doubt. In a Conference which had before it
men like Randolph S. Foster and Gilbert Haven and
the other leaders of that famous Conference of 1872,
ministers like Dr. James M. Buckley and laymen like
Judge Reynolds advocated the election of Edward G.
Andrews as unmistakably wise. Dr. Andrews was
elected on the third ballot.

Like his work before his election, the career of
Edward G. Andrews as Bishop was without exciting

TEACHER AND PREACHER 33

or spectacular incident. Edward G. Andrews, how-
ever, was a great Bishop. It is to his work as Bishop
that we now turn. We make no attempt to follow his
career chronologically, but take up one after another
the features of his work which placed the Methodist
Episcopal Church under lasting obligation to him. It
is with some thought of at least faintly suggesting
this debt that the succeeding chapters are written.
Enough of chronological statement appears to keep
the main current of events before us, but the emphasis
is upon the character and quality of the episcopal
work of Edward G. Andrews.

II

THE EPISCOPAL CAREER

THE APPOINTING POWER

PERHAPS the first duty of the Bishop, and the
one most important in the eyes of the Church,
is that of making the appointments. In dis-
cussing Bishop Andrews as a maker of appointments
we ask the indulgence of the reader as we set forth
some considerations which show the exceeding deHcacy
and intricacy of appointment-making. What we shall
say is familiar and commonplace to the Methodist
ministers and laymen, but the most devoted Metho-
dists often forget some simple facts when brought
face to face with the "appointing power" at work.
There is no duty which renders the Bishop more
liable to misunderstanding and criticism than this of
assigning the preachers in the Conference to their
"charges."

If we may be permitted to say so, the Methodist
Conferences considered now merely in their internal
organizations are a sort of approach on a small scale
to the ideal which the Socialists urge upon us for all
society. According to the Methodist theory, and also
largely according to the practice, there is a place for
every man and a man for every place. Theoretically,
no man has a claim on any particular place. Theo-
retically, all the ministers are equal before the Bishop,
who may send any minister to any place where the
needs of the work seem to demand that particular

37

38 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

minister. Theoretically, and in fact, the ministers
as a body are actuated in the main by the desire to
bring in the kingdom of God, and the Methodist
system could not hold together for a year if the
fundamental desire on the part of the ministers and
laymen were not to advance the cause of righteous-
ness. Theoretically, the Bishop is not a monarch,
or even a military leader — he is the instrument through
whom the Church speaks, and in his selection even the
ministers who receive appointment at his hands have
had as much share as is possible in a democracy
working through representative forms of government.
Here are so many places and so many workers, the
workers agreeing to be sent to their work by a power
whom they have had a hand in allotting to his task.
As we have said, the system is a sort of approxima-
tion in a limited way to the ideal which the Socialist
stands for, though we call attention to the resemblance
merely for the sake of making the system more
intelligible to the ordinary reader.

All this is very clear on paper, but in actual practice
many intricacies appear. One complexity comes out
of the growth of the work. In the early days it was
possible for a Bishop to know personally almost all
the ministers of a Conference. In those days, too,
the work was simple. The preaching, especially the
preaching of strictly evangelistic sermons, was the
main duty. The Church had not taken on many of
the forms of activity which make the strain of modem
pastoral life so heavy, and a preacher's success could
be estimated largely by the number of conversions
which he reported. In after years, however, it became

THE APPOINTING POWER 39

necessary for the Bishop to rely upon the reports of
presiding elders, now called district superintendents,
who, through their visits to the churches once every
three months, were supposed to know more intimately
than any Bishop could the demands of the work in
the various places. The body of superintendents in
any Conference came to be known as the "Cabinet,"
the name obviously coming from the body of advisers
surrounding the President of the United States. Still
later came into more and more prominence the com-
mittee from the particular church, which, though it
had no legal voice in the selection of a minister, came
more and more to insist upon its moral ri^ht to be
heard when a change of pastors was contemplated.

The growth of the work also made for the modifica-
tion of the system by increasing the number of years
for which a minister could be appointed consecutively
to any one church. In 1804 the time limit was made
two years; in 1864, three years; in 1888, five years; in
1900 the limit was removed altogether, so that under
the present rule a minister can be reappointed to a
church indefinitely. These changes came, we repeat,
as the result of the growth of the Church and of the
country and were an attempt on the part of the Church
to meet the changing demands of the time. For ex-
ample, when the time limit was made five years, in 1888,
there was hardly a trolley line in the United States.
With the application of electricity to urban and subur-
ban transportation a marked change was made in city
church conditions. Population centers began to shift
and congregations even in comparatively fixed centers
lost their old-time stability. The ease of getting about.

40 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

and the consequent rapid flitting of real estate values
from point to point introduced an almost incredible
fluidity into conditions in city churches. In a metro-
politan community, even where large numbers of
persons own their own homes, a church has been known
to receive over five hundred bojia fide members in five
years and yet experience a net growth during that
time of only fifty. The enormous proportion of move-
ment in and out of such a congregation can better
be seen if we state the further fact that the growth
was from a membership of seven hundred and fifty
to a membership of eight hundred. Now in such
situations after a period of five years the pastor is
likely to be the only fixed point in the flow, if there
is to be any fixed point at all.

With the increase of the length of pastoral term,
however, there are brought out more and more clearly
the differences between churches and the differences
between men. Under any system of assigning men
to tasks there is no chance of doing away with the
fact that some appointments are undesirable. We
cannot do away with the undesirabilities by calling the
places equal or by calling the men equal. With the
lengthening term it becomes clear that some men are
fitted and some unfitted for long work in one place.
The long-term men keep to the long-term churches
and these churches are withdrawn somewhat from
the general circulation among the ministers, so to speak.
Under a system which moves a man at the end of
three or five years, an undesirable man may be borne
with through five years when he ought to have
gone at the end of three, because the Church throws

THE APPOINTING POWER 41

upon the impersonal system the automatic discharge
of a task which might otherwise be unpleasant. We
hint at these things to show the enormous delicacy of
making the appointments in an Annual Conference.
When Bishop Andrews was elected the three-year
system had been working for eight years. When he
had been Bishop sixteen years the five-year rule came
in. The last four years of his episcopal career were
passed under the no-limit rule. We can see how with
these complexities the work of Bishop Andrews as a
maker of appointments must have been of high grade.
The criticisms passed upon his appointments have
been remarkably few. Perhaps we can discern some-
thing of the force of the Bishop in his making of
appointments if we take up one after another the
various factors which he had to meet and try to come
to some understanding, at least, of his spirit in dealing
with them.

Take first his dealing with the district superintend-
ents, or the presiding elders, as they were called in
his time. These men meet with the Bishop from, the
first day of Conference week, and advise him in the
matter of appointment making. Now, these men are
Methodist ministers, and very rarely is one found who
comes into a Cabinet meeting with any consciously
unfair spirit toward any of the men whose appoint-
ment he is to discuss. They are men, however. If
John Wesley said that he saw no danger in one-man
power in the Church so long as he was the one man
into whose hands the power was committed, we
charitably pass the remark by with the comment that
John Wesley, great as he was, nevertheless lacked

42 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

a sense of humor. So often it has to be said of
a district superintendent that, well-intentioned as
he may be, he occasionally lacks a sense of humor, and
in a perfectly na'ive and ingenuous way shows too
great a spirit of willingness to relieve the Bishop of
the power which constitutionally belongs to the
Bishop. The district superintendents have ample
opportunity to discuss the making of appointments
before the Conference meets ; in fact, they are supposed
to meet together for such discussion, but in their
meetings together there sometimes result what to all
practical purposes are combinations of which a higher
wisdom might not altogether approve. This is not
intended to be a caricature of the system, for we can
hardly see how the Church could get along without
the district superintendents so long as the general
superintendents have to travel throughout the whole
connection. There are to be found in Methodism
to-day men who have served two and three terms
as district superintendent, and through all the delicacy
of repeated changes of appointment of ministers have
kept and increased the love of their brethren. In
general, however, there is always the possibility that the
district superintendent will look upon the work from
the standpoint of his own district rather than from
that of the Church as a whole, and this tendency has
to be watched. Bishop Andrews knew how to watch it.
On one occasion — indeed, on more than one occasion
— a young man came as a supply into one of the more
important pulpits during an interim and proved him-
self in that interim to be the man for the place. The
urgent protests of presiding elders against the young

THE APPOINTING POWER 43

man's remaining where he was did not weigh much
with Bishop Andrews, though no one was more
careful than he not to be unjust to older men in his
promotion of younger men. When, on another
occasion, a presiding elder favored a radical change,
and insistently urged it upon the Bishop without
being willing himself to take the responsibility for
the action which he advised, the Bishop found a way
to commit the elder even though he himself willingly
assumed his share of the responsibility. No Bishop
was ever less ruled by presiding elders than was
Bishop Andrews. In some cases it must be said that
the only course is for the presiding elders to make
the appointments, for the simple reason that the
Bishop has not had time to study the cases or has
had so much else to do that he dozes during Cabinet
meeting, but we have not heard that such instances
occurred in the administration of Bishop Andrews.
He never had too much to do to look into the last
detail of appointment-making which needed attention,
and he never dozed in Cabinet meeting. No Bishop
ever gained higher respect from presiding elders than
did Edward G. Andrews. He was willing to let them
help him as far as help was possible, but he did not
submit to being hoodwinked even though the hood-
winker had the kindest and most charitable intentions.
Equally wise was Bishop Andrews in dealing with
the church committees that came to him. The church
committee has often been denounced as an innova-
tion in Methodism, carrying Methodism away from
her moorings off toward Congregationalism. If this
is true, the innovation started in rather early, for the

44 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

late Aaron Hunt, in a paper quoted in Buckley's Meth-
odism, vol. i, p. 367, declares that "Soon after the com-
mencement of the present century [the nineteenth]
two or three cases occurred which gave the Bishop
great annoyance. Some preachers finding themselves
in pleasant stations, and, by the aid of self-constituted
committees, believing, of course, that they could do
better in the place than anyone else, objected to
removal, while the more pious part of the society
would have preferred a change ; but the officious com-
mittee prevailed." There can be no doubt from this
quotation that there was a time when the church com-
mittee was looked upon as an innovation, but men
began to speak of it as an innovation over a hundred
years ago. An innovation which lasts a hundred
years and over may be troublesome to Bishops, and
may seem very officious to the "pious part of the
society," but a hundred years' existence gives it a title
to being called one of the institutions of the Church.
There is no doubt that Bishop Andrews looked upon
the committee from the church as one of the legiti-
mate institutions of Methodism, at least in the later
years of his career, and spoke of it as such. Of
course the committee has no legal power, but neither
has the Cabinet. It is an advisory body and as an
advisory body the Bishop was always willing to
respect it and listen to it. In the days of his own
pastorates he had accepted churches in response to
invitations from committees, and in his later years
felt that it was the positive duty of the church com-
mittees to examine into the qualifications of any
whom they might be seeking as pastors. He met com-

THE APPOINTING POWER 45

inittees from all over the country and did what he
could to put them on the path of the right men, even
when he himself was not holding their Conferences.
The laymen felt perfectly free to come to him and
to ask for suggestions as to where to look for a new
man. He repeatedly expressed his confidence in the
ability of the committee of this or that church to
find the man w'ho would do the kind of work which
ought to be done. On one occasion in private con-
versation he vigorously defended a metropolitan
church against the charge that the church was dis-
regarding the welfare of the Conference and the
rights of the Conference men in going outside the
Conference bounds for ministers. In a word, Bishop
Andrews believed in the church committee. There
was no departure from anything truly Methodistic
in this. The committee is advisory, and there is no
Methodist principle which forbids a Bishop's getting
advice from as many sources as possible. A properly
chosen church committee is as good a source as any
for the discovery of the needs of a particular church.
But Bishop Andrews kept the appointing power
in his own hands. He was willing to consider the
committee, but he considered other things also. He
would listen patiently even to a layman who thought
his own viewpoint the only viewpoint, but he did not
allow the layman to make the appointment. He
recognized the responsibility of churches to ministers
and would not permit needless hardship if he could
prevent it. He did not share the view of those
who think that because the ministerial life is to be
one of self-sacrifice, therefore opportunities of self-

46 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

sacrifice should be multiplied to suit the whims or
the heedlessness of churches. In his own ministry he
once accepted a call to a church which had a parson-
age in poor repair. The Dr. Andrews of that time
did not insist that the parsonage should be put in
repair, but the committee promised to have it put in
repair. As the first months of Dr. Andrews's ministry
wore along nothing was said about the parsonage
repairs, and the new minister said nothing; but he
left the church at the end of the year. There was
no ugliness or bitterness about his leave-taking, but
those who were close to him knew why he left.
In his dealing with churches he always kept the
church as far as possible up to his thought of obliga-
tion toward the minister.

Again, Bishop Andrews in dealing with committees
knew how in a skillful and tactful way to make the
committees see the complexity of the church situation,
especially when the calling of a minister involved
going outside the Conference in which the calling
church might be situated. For example, a church in
New York, let us say, desires a man from Chicago.
The church in Chicago does not desire the man from
New York but desires one from New England. Under
such circumstances as these the only possibility of
getting the man from Chicago may lie in the New
York committee's cooperating to find an opening for
the New York man in New England, or elsewhere.
And Bishop Andrews insisted upon such cooperation.
Under his guidance the New York church (of course
these names are simply for the sake of illustration)
would be very careful not to say or do anything likely

THE APPOINTING POWER 47

to interfere with tlie future usefulness of the man
leaving New York. Under such circumstances
Bishop Andrews has been known to send word that
the man leaving a particular pulpit was leaving through
no lack of worthy effort on his own part, and has
served notice that unless such a man could be cared
for without having his usefulness impaired by a dis-
count put upon his services the Bishop would not
consent to any change. This was never done in an
arbitrary or dictatorial way, but it was done very
effectively, nevertheless. An outsider can hardly be
brought to know the complexity of this system be-
cause, on the whole, it works with such efficiency.
Of course the men who are working under the system
work of their own free will, but the system is made
to move smoothly, not only by the consecration of
the men but by the willingness of leaders like Bishop
Andrews to keep the whole field in mind.

We do not mean that events always worked out
just as Bishop Andrews expected them to, but we do
mean that his advice to committees and his dealing
with them seldom showed any mistake on the basis
of the facts as presented to him. It was once pro-
posed to locate a church in New York in a district
which was preponderantly non-Methodistic in senti-
ment and to call a young man from a neighboring
Conference to the pulpit. The Bishop was much
opposed to the project. The enterprise, however, was
carried through, and under the leadership of the new
minister proved an astonishing success. Bishop
Andrews himself was among the heartiest admirers
of the success in after years, though he had pre-

48 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

dieted failure. His advice, however, at the time was
sound, for no one could have foreseen the success
which the minister made through the sheer force of
his own personal strength. In cases like the above
the Bishop almost always gave conservative advice.
If a young man was called to a city pulpit, he felt
that it was part of his duty both to the young man
and to the church to make both feel that the odds
were against success. At one time he fairly appalled
a young man thinking of coming to a metropolitan
pulpit with a recital of what lay before him, conclud-
ing, however, with advice to the young man to come.
Anyone who knows anything of the difficulty of
having any sort of success with a metropolitan pulpit
can appreciate the kindness of the Bishop's conversa-
tion. He understood the problems of the city church.
During his life in New York he would often use his
unoccupied Sundays in visiting the churches in the
difficult fields, so that he knew from first-hand con-
tact the difficulties.

Before we leave this topic of his relation to the
church committees it may be just as well to state
again the fact that he did not surrender his power
to anyone, but always acted on his own judgment
after the most patient search for all the facts. He
would put committees off if he thought they were
acting hastily. A committee from a church in a
residence community where the sole opportunity was
that of the family church, once came to him with a
request for the appointment of a man whose success
had almost wholly been in handling downtown prob-
lems by rather startling methods. The Bishop

THE APPOINTING POWER 49

refused to consider the appointment until the com-
mittee should have held it in abeyance for three
months. "I am going to Europe," he said, "to be
gone all summer. If you still want this man when
I come back, I'll consider appointing him, but not
before." If necessary he could refuse a committee.
One of the "officious" committees waited on him once
with simply negative requests. They did not want
this man and they did not want that. The Bishop
granted a long interview, trying to guide their
rather aimless reasonings to some sort of conclusion.
He mentioned at least six of the best men in the
Conference to them, but met with repeated refusal.
At last he said : "Brethren, I have mentioned to you
six of the best men in the Conference and you are
not satisfied. I shall send you whomsoever I please.
Good afternoon."

We have laid stress on the fact that the Bishop
guarded the welfare of his ministers. He did not,
however, lose sight of the fact that, after all, the great
aim was the good of the work. Of course he had
his friends, and he would have had to be more than
human, or less than human, if he did not see superior
virtues in those friends ; but in general, it must be
said that the Bishop was wonderfully successful in
keeping personal considerations out of his view.
The problem before him was the problem of the
kingdom, and he did not ask what was to be the effect
on this or that particular minister as over against
the great needs of the work. Years ago he picked
up a young man in one of the central western Con-
ferences and without consulting him made him a

so EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

presiding elder. The young man might have con-
cluded that the Bishop had taken some personal fancy
to him, but the Bishop was thinking only of the good
of the work. Years later a pulpit in a prominent
eastern city opened, and after consultation with the
resident Bishop in that city the presiding elder tele-
graphed this western minister to come on and take
the pulpit. There was protest in the church over the
action of the presiding elder and the case was sub-
mitted to Bishop Andrews, into whose jurisdiction
the Conference had just come. Bishop Andrews
promptly nullified the work of the presiding elder,
though doing so meant throwing the man in the west
out of appointment for six months. In the elevation
of this man there had been no consultation with
him. in his casting aside there was no consultation
with him. In each case the Bishop was acting with
no personal considerations in mind whatsoever. He
was thinking about what seemed to him the good of
the work.

We venture a second instance of the way the Bishop
refused to judge important matters on a personal
basis. There is nothing extraordinary in the follow-
ing incident, and we select it simply because it is
ordinary, showing the Bishop's accustomed ways of
dealing with some problems. In this case there is
no harm in mentioning names and places. In the year
1898 the Rev. George H. Geyer finished three years
of remarkably effective work in Spencer Church, Iron-
ton, Ohio. When the Ohio Conference met in the
fall of that year a movement was started by the King
Avenue Church of Columbus, Ohio, to secure Geyer

THE APPOINTING POWER 51

for their pastorate. Geyer expressed a desire to
remain at I ronton. The battle was fought out between
the committees before the Bishop. Finally the Bishop
said that he would probably send Geyer to Columbus.
A presiding elder asked if it would not be best for
the Bishop to see Brother Geyer. The Bishop de-
clined, saying that while it would be a pleasure to
meet Brother Geyer personally, he would not meet
him for the discussion of the appointment. Geyer
was sent to King Avenue, where in the few years
that remained before an untimely death he accom-
plished an important and signally successful work.
Now, all this seems arbitrary, but it was done out of
regard for the work of the entire field. It was also
done out of regard for Mr. Geyer. To have discussed
the matter with the Bishop might have placed Geyer
in an embarrassing position. All he could do was to
protest, anyhow, and the Bishop wished to leave him
in a position to say that the appointment had been
made without his consent, especially since the appoint-
ment was a promotion.

After having announced a decision Bishop Andrews
seldom reconsidered. In the early years of his
episcopacy he found that the appointments kept
debating themselves in his mind after the close of a
Conference session, and he determined to do his work
so thoroughly that further reflection by him would be
useless. So he came to a power to do all that he
could do on the basis of the facts before him and then
to close the case. He would have been the last to
deny that sometimes mistakes crept in, but they left
no bitterness in the minds of those who were dis-

UBCAFY

52 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

appointed. The writer of these Hues has talked with
men who at one time and another had suffered dis-
appointment at the hands of Bishop Andrews, but in
every case the final verdict even from these men has
been that the Bishop acted throughout as a real Bishop
and did the best he could under the circumstances.

What was the secret of the power of the Bishop in
thus moving through the intricacies of the Methodist
system and keeping the respect of all whose lives he
had to touch? The system of Methodism is, indeed,
intricate, but it brings bitterness only when it is in
the hands of incompetent or careless men. The
ordinary changes of lot the minister is apt to take as
a matter of course because the system is one under
which he is voluntarily working. There are inevit-
able disappointments, as there would be under any
plan, but these are, for the most part, put up with un-
complainingly. In the unusual cases Bishops have
triumphed by different gifts. Bishop Simpson would
preach so eloquently that a man could go cheerfully
to the hardest field after hearing the sermon. Bishop
Foster would discourse so profoundly upon the
foundations of the kingdom that a minister would
feel it an honor to accept any kind of appointment
from him. Other Bishops have shown such kindli-
ness and brotherliness that the men have been willing
to overlook blunders in the appointments. Bishop
Andrews did not explain or apologize for his appoint-
ments, but every man went to his work, even if with
disappointment, feeling that the Bishop had gone
to the bottom of his case and had done all that he
could do in the particular situation. In other words.

THE APPOINTING POWER 53

Bishop Andrews held the confidence of the ministers
because he was a Bishop in the truest sense. He gave
himself to the work of a Bishop and to that alone.
When we think of his services to the Church we must
not be disappointed because we cannot connect his
name with any great institutional creation. Bishop
Andrews wrought a service to the Methodist Church
in showing how finely the Methodist system would
work if the ministers could be brought to perfect con-
fidence in their presiding officers. Without that con-
fidence no improvements in mere machinery can be
of much avail. The firm working of the machinery
of our Church from 1872 to 1904 is in no small part
due to Edward G. Andrews. As an appointment-
maker he did much to justify the Methodist system.

II

THE PRESIDING OFFICER

WHEN we think of Edward G. Andrews as
a Bishop, our minds soon run to pictures
of his dignity and power as presiding
officer. Even the Methodist minister may not stop
often enough to think how much of the success of
his Annual Conference meeting is due to the power of
the presiding officer. Imagine a gathering of any-
where from fifty to three hundred ministers met to
transact business having to do directly and indirectly
with as many churches. There are reports of district
superintendents to be heard, committees to be ap-
pointed and to be heard, new members to be elected
to the ministry, general Church officials to be heard.
To expedite this business the Bishops move in order
through the consideration of some thirty questions
called Minute Questions, but even these questions
give no idea of the amount of the work done. The
New York East Conference, for example, begins its
sessions on Wednesday morning and adjourns usually
on the next Tuesday evening. It requires a printed
volume of some one hundred thousand words to
record merely the business done in a week's session.

The Conferences presided over by Bishop Andrews
seldom presented any dramatic features. The work
went on in an orderly and businesslike way. Some
who look at this chapter may wonder what there can

54

THE PRESIDING OFFICER 55

possibly be to say of Bishop Andrews as a presiding
officer, since his presidencies afforded so Httle in the
way of departure from the methodical. It is this very
fact of the absence of the unusual that we wish to
mention and emphasize, A visitor dropping in upon
a Conference held by Bishop Andrews would find
little that was exciting, unless a perfectly legitimate
debate upon some important topic might have aroused
the excitement. Confusions in Conferences are
usually the fault of the presiding officer. To the
credit of the Bishops it must be said that the vast
amount of work transacted in the Methodist Confer-
ences in the course of a year is due to the skill with
which the Conferences are held to their legitimate
tasks by the presidents. There are now and then
exceptions. It is possible for a Conference to lash
itself into a perfect frenzy of debate over inconse-
quential matters if the president does not keep the
main point in the main place. Or a very intelligent
Bishop, from the standpoint of his general knowledge,
may through weariness or momentary confusion allow
the body to slip from the straight line of parliament-
ary procedure. One of the profoundest thinkers and
best-loved leaders the Church has ever known always
had noisy Conferences. The mind that was at home
in the depths of theology, and which beamed in kindli-
ness in personal dealing with the brethren, was not
nimble enough in handling the points in parliamentary
practice. Nor has the business type of mind always
fared much better. Even such a mind may misread
a situation through contact with the Cabinet alone, it
may be, or through conversations with the kindly

S6 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

layman who entertains the presiding officer. Then
there is always the possibility of the presiding officer's
losing his command of himself, and allowing a motion,
an amendment to a motion, an amendment to an
amendment, a substitute for all before the house, and
the previous question, to get before him in inextricable
confusion — this, too, on a motion which an adequate
understanding of the law of the Church would rule
out as improper.

The Bishops seem to have different ways of
handling difficult parliamentary tangles, or over-
excitement in Conferences. One will make a direct
appeal to the men to have regard to all the proprieties
of the situation ; another, it may be, will shut off the
debate by forcibly putting the question ; another will
whisper to one of the secretaries to go upon the floor
and move the previous question. It is at times abso-
lutely necessary that something be done, or the Con-
ference will transform itself into a debating society
for the discussion of minute particular and wide-
ranging general problems. This is a common danger
in all parliamentary bodies. It is perfectly astonish-
ing to note how the most intelligent bodies of men
will in a parliamentary discussion get quickly away
from the main point and never come back to it of
their own accord. What might be called the group
mind of a parliamentary body works largely under
the law of association. One thing suggests another
as remote as if it came out of dreamland, and men
who in their private thinking move straight from
point to point by the laws of reason will add to the
confusion by other side-fancies. The Methodist

THE PRESIDING OFFICER 57

preachers have constant practice in presumably logical
thinking. They are yearly practiced in parliamentary
procedure in a better training ground than any other
ecclesiastical body in the country, but they have to
be held to the line by capable Bishops. Now, the
method of Bishop Andrews in dealing with the Con-
ferences was, first of all, to find out as far ahead as
possible the kind of problem he would have to meet
in a particular situation. If he knew that a knotty
case was to be discussed, he would master anew all
points in INIethodist law having the sliglitest bearing
on that case. He would then post himself on the
rules of the particular Conference. Of course added
to all this was a superb acquaintance with parliament-
ary procedure. Above all, however, was a determi-
nation to keep all discussion to the main point. He
believed that if the debates of a Conference could be
kept to the main issue there would be little chance of
confusion. So in the procedure of Bishop Andrews
the Conference could be sure of two things : first, that
no motion would be put which did not have a right
to be put ; and, second, that the discussion would have
to stick to the point. Bishop Andrews always listened
to the debates and kept the debates from becoming
exhortations or lectures or reminiscences or sermons.
So it came about that the Conferences presided
over by Bishop Andrews were from the standpoint
of the lover of excitement rather tame affairs. Only
when the question was inherently exciting could there
be much scope for the dramatic. At other times the
Conference moved along rapidly and yet with perfect
ease. Bishop Andrews was a Bishop at his Confer-

58 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

ences. He presided over three hundred times. This
bare statement that he held three hundred orderly,
businesslike Conferences is an indication of the faith-
fulness with which he did his work. Of course there
was something in his very presence which made for
the orderly conduct of the business. It would have
seemed almost like parliamentary blasphemy to offer
an obviously trifling or irrelevant or bad-tempered
motion to Bishop Andrews, but anyone who knew the
working of his mind could see that, after all, his power
lay in his comprehensive grasp of a Conference situa-
tion, his patient mastery of all the details, and, above
all, his irresistible movement to the one essential
point. In his Conference administrations he was liter-,
ally death and destruction to all side issues. He was
present at the Conference sessions to attend to the
work of the Conference and for no other purpose.
The indebtedness of the Church to him for this service
cannot be very definitely stated, but the indebtedness
is very real, nevertheless. There was a very general
recognition of this fact before the Bishop passed
away. Edward G. Andrews came to be looked upon
as one of the great Church forces. To the eye of the
discerning no small part of his usefulness lay in the
fact that he worked so easily and quietly that men did
not realize, until they stopped to count up, the enor-
mous total of service which the Bishop was rendering
the Church. The meeting of the Annual Conferences
of Methodism is really a great ecclesiastical marvel.
The work goes on quietly, with no great attention from
the public. Yet the results achieved in the way of
bringing the work of the Church year definitely to an

THE PRESIDING OFFICER 59

end, the increased clearness of understanding which
comes into all the work from careful statistical report-
ings, the enforced consideration of great Church and
social and political questions through debates of
committee reports, the consideration of local church
situations — all this makes the meeting of the Annual
Conferences of great importance for the ecclesiastical
world. The largest single factor in carrying on this
multifarious work successfully is the presence in the
president's chair of a real Bishop. Nobody ever
questioned that Bishop Andrews was such a Bishop.

The presidency of the Bishop over the Annual Con-
ference, however, is not the only place where power
as presiding officer is called for. The General Con-
ference presidency is more taxing still. Readers of
this book will hardly need to be informed that the
General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal
Church is a delegated body numbering now nearly
eight hundred members, ministers and laymen in
equal proportions, into whose control are committed
the supreme lawmaking and judicial functions of the
Church. To this body the Bishops themselves are
amenable. The Bishops are created by the body and
can be retired from active service by the body.

The position of the Bishops at the General Confer-
ence is a very delicate one. A Bishop rather given to
suggestive speech once remarked that the episcopacy
was a fine work for forty-seven months out of forty-
eight. The other month, of course, is the month of the
meeting of the General Conference. The Conference
is very careful of its own rights as over against the
possible encroachments of any other body of officials

6o EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

whatever. The Bishops are not allowed to take part
in the debates. At the opening of the session they
address to the Conference their thought concerning
the progress of the work and the state of the Church,
together with any recommendations they may see fit
to make for legislation. But these recommendations
are recommendations only. The Bishops meet every
afiernoon during the Conference session, and confer
with the representatives of the Conference on any
matters which the Conference chooses, but during the
four weeks of the session the Conference is master.
This does not mean that there is any lack ol respect
shown the Bishops, for the Conference would silence
at once any man who might venture upon needless
criticism of the Bishops, but the supremacy of the Con-
ference itself to anybody and anything else is a part of
the atmosphere of General Conference sessions.

The Bishops take their turn in presiding over the
sessions of the Conference. In addition to the gen-
eral delicacy of the situation which arises over the
sensitiveness of the Conference to its own rights — a
sensitiveness which the Conference rightly feels is
necessary if the Methodist Church is to remain a
democratic body — there are considerations which make
the task of the presiding officer very trying. First
of all is the size of the body. There are very few
halls in this country which would furnish ideal meet-
ing places for the deliberations of an assembly as
large as the General Conference. "So that the presid-
ing officer has to face a difficult problem because of
the very physical proportions of his task. Almost all
large halls have dead spots, so far as acoustic proper-

THE PRESIDING OFFICER 6i

ties are concerned, and the dead spots are the horror
both of presiding officers and members on the floor.
The writer of these hnes once heard a man in the
rear seats of a General Conference move that when
the body adjourn it be to meet on the next morning
at half-past eight. The motion was put by the presid-
ing Bishop as if it were that when the body adjourn
the next day — which would be Saturday — it be at
half-past ten, and the motion was voted on in this
form, of course with the member who made the
motion shouting that he had been misunderstood.
The difficulty was with the hall. Out of the size of
the hall, too, comes something of nervous strain on
the speakers who are addressing the Conference.
William Pitt once said that a prime minister never
could get on in discussing affairs of state so long as he
had to kneel before his sovereign. The position is not
conducive to the discussion of the finer points. So it
may be said of the General Conference debate that it is
not possible for a speaker to argue the finer points
at the top of his voice. It is true that the very size
of the General Conference acts a good deal as a
process of natural selection is supposed to act, and
keeps out of the discussion many things which are
not clear and not relatively simple ; but the survival is
not always of the fittest. There comes after a while
a feeling on the part of many members that the battle
is to the noisiest, so that the nervous irritability of
a Conference is often very marked. The presiding
officer can very easily add to the strain. Anyone who
has at all carefully observed a General Conference
can tell how inevitably the Conference will take its

62 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

nervous tone from that of the presiding officer. If
the Bishop is nervous the Conference becomes nervous.
If the Bishop talks too fast the members stir about,
and if he talks too low they call out that they cannot
hear. The size of the room, the heat of the season —
and warm days come in May — the cramped quarters
of the delegates' seats, and the irritability which
arises from the causes which we have mentioned, make
the task of presiding over a General Conference one
of the most trying which fall to the lot of the Bishops,
more trying, perhaps, than that of presiding over any
other parliamentary body on earth ; for while the con-
ventions of the great political bodies are, perhaps,
the only bodies which rival a General Conference in
size, the work of a political convention is ordinarily
so thoroughly cut and dried that the president does
nothing but carry out along the prearranged lines a
carefully prepared program. The House of Repre-
sentatives is not nearly so large as the General Con-
ference, and, moreover, long ago ceased to be a
deliberative body. The business is in the hands of
the Speaker in an unusual and preeminent degree.

Now, with the presidencies of Bishop Andrews
over the General Conference the same thing must be
said which was said about his presidency over an
Annual Conference, and must be said as a high
compliment. From the standpoint of the newsmonger
or the sensation-lover the Conferences of Bishop
Andrews were apt to be very tame. At least there
was no excitement which came out of the manner of
the presiding officer. Bishop Andrews, perhaps all
unconsciously to himself, had the power to keep the

THE PRESIDING OFFICER 63

Conference in a businesslike temper. He never for-
got that there were hardly more than twenty-eight
working days in the session, that in those days an
enormous amount of work must be gone through,
that it was incumbent on him to keep the Conference
to the main point. It was a constant marvel to all
beholders to see how unerringly and quickly the mind
of the Bishop seized the gist of every discussion, and
in his puttings of motions for vote got every point in
its proper place. He knew how to keep the business
moving. Moreover, he was fair in his recognition
of members. It was not the loudest voice which
attracted his attention. His long familiarity with the
Church enabled him to catch the names of the delegates
easily, and he was careful not to let the merely noisy
men get too much recognition when others were
desirous of being heard. And, more than all this,
the Conference took its temper from the dignity and
calm self-confidence of the Bishop. Inasmuch as
there was no danger of the Bishop's being "rattled,"
the Conference did not become "rattled." There is
a leader in our Church who has many times come to
the relief of annoyed and flurried presiding officers
by getting the floor and then moving with great
deliberation down the aisle to the speaker's platform,
taking as much time as possible. The interval thus
secured gives the Bishop and the Conference time to
catch breath. We never heard of the necessity of
rendering this service to Bishop Andrews or to any
Conference over which he was presiding. His Con-
ferences took their poise from him, and moved quietly
and effectively through the business.

64 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

Another duty of a Bishop at a General Conference
is to serve as a check upon movements which arise
out of mass enthusiasm. He is a part of the system
of checks whicli the Church has devised to prevent
unwise and fooHsh action on the part of the supreme
body in moments of great excitement. The object
of all parliamentary restriction is, of course, to keep
an organized body from becoming a mob. Hence the
need of making motions in proper form, of having
them seconded, of limiting the time of speakers, of
not allowing some motions to be put. If the Bishops
existed for no other purpose than to preside over the
sessions of the General Conference, and did that well,
the office would be worth while. As a matter of
actual fact, very few unwise radical propositions ever
get very far with a legislative body if the president
knows his business, for in its cooler moments the body
has adopted carefully prepared systems of rules which
prevent hasty action. It is absolutely imperative that
these rules be part of the very breath of the officer
as he stands before the body. Especially is this true
in our General Conference, where important legisla-
tive matters can go through on one reading after com-
ing from a committee. If, now, there be in the chair
a man whose temperament is predominantly emo-
tional or oratorical, almost anything can take place.
A very whirlwind of enthusiasm might commit
the Church to extreme ecclesiastical folly through
a period of at least four years. There are some
men, however, under whom whirlwinds are not likely
to break out, and Edward G. Andrews was one of
them.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER 65

In any case a president is needed who knows the
law and history of the Church, who knows what is
in harmony with the fundamentals and what is not,
who knows what motions are revolutionary and is
able, at least, to let the Conference see the direction
in which it is moving. No Bishop in our history
has been better able to tell on hearing a motion as
it came up from the floor of the Conference what
part of it was in order and what not in order than
Edward G. Andrews ; and no matter how loud the
applause which greeted a motion he would not put
it if he had any thought that it was out of order.
If appeals to the floor were ever carried against him
under such circumstances we have not heard of them.

After these phases have been dwelt upon which
show the General Conference on its side of least
advantage, and the necessity of having strong men
to act as checks upon its activity, another fact must
also be dwelt upon, namely, that Bishop Andrews
had a very profound respect for the General Con-
ference. It will be seen in later chapters that he
very seriously questioned the wisdom of some partic-
ular points of General Conference enactment, but
he believed in the General Conference. He was not
among those who sneer at it. He recognized the fact
that the vast mass of the men are well-meaning and
devout, with no thought but the welfare of the
Church. He saw, too, that the General Conference
is, in the main, composed of men who are themselves
leaders. Without casting any reflections upon any
other form of Church government, he saw in the
General Conference a democratic Church working

66 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

out its will through democratic forms. He saw all
the dangers of such a body and did his part to stand
against and counteract the dangers. He, indeed,
had a feeling that much important work failed of
accomplishment at the hands of the Conference, but
he believed it the best and most democratic instru-
ment attainable under the present ecclesiastical con-
ditions. He was not even much disturbed at the
charges of wire-pulling brought against the General
Conference. He knew well enough that while the Gen-
eral Conference might be a bungling instrument for the
choice of men to ecclesiastical positions, its very size
made it reasonably proof against dishonesty in wire-
pulling. For himself he had misgivings as to
whether the present method of electing Bishops
might not be improved upon by having the election
take place through some carefully selected council,
but he did not base his arguments upon any liability
to unworthy work in the present system. With all
the disadvantages of the present system he was,
nevertheless, profoundly respectful toward it. He
was not one of those who see in a desire of delegates
to elect this or that man to an office anything neces-
sarily unworthy, and he approved all efforts to make
the fitness of worthy men be known. Upon occasion
he himself would speak and speak freely to all whom
he met about the need of putting this or that man in
a prominent position. He was not alarmed by cries
of corruption. With his shrewd sense of humor he
recognized the fact that the men who fail in carry-
ing out self-seeking plans of their own are always
first to cry out that the victor has gone In by un-

THE PRESIDING OFFICER 67

worthy methods. He recognized the fact that it is
possible for self-seekers to capture the prize they
seek, but he saw large room for legitimate work to
serve the Church by letting men know of the leaders
who can really serve. There was one man especially
whom he ardently desired to see elected a Bishop,
and he never lost an opportunity to point out the
fitness of that man for the place. He would have as
soon thought that another man was wire-pulling in
doing a similar work for the Church as he would
have thought that he himself was wire-pulling. For
men who themselves head campaigns for themselves
he had great contempt, and for men who combine
with others like themselves in unholy compacts he
had unspeakable scorn; but he knew that a General
Conference running up into the hundreds in number
could not well be controlled by any such men, though
occasionally one such might succeed. No, Bishop
Andrews had respect for the General Conference.
He did not take a lofty attitude toward it and he
did not fear it. He respected it. He had a clear
head and a firm hand in dealing with the Conference
as its presiding officer, but deeper than all this was
a fundamental respect, which those who saw him
with the gavel in his hand could not but feel. He
respected his brethren and they respected him. Out
of the mutual respect came those marvelously suc-
cessful presidencies which go far toward making his
career as General Conference president an author-
itative standard.

In closing this section we refer for a moment to
the records of the General Conference for the session

68 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

of May II, 1900. Our selection is made almost at
random. The session opened with devotions at 8:30
A.M. The first action was to limit all speeches in
debate to five minutes, thus putting on the presiding
officer the responsibility for keeping track of the time.
The order of the day was consideration of the removal
of the time limit. The Bishop had first to rule out
a motion to allow five speakers to appear "on the
other side" after Dr. S. Parkes Cadman, who was
to have the floor on the call for the order of the day,
should have finished. Before Dr. Cadman began to
speak the Conference insisted on taking another
vote for Bishop, the Conference being in the midst
of the election. Then a member arose and protested
against the report that the word "bitterly" had been
used in a speech of the day before. Next the Bishop
stated the general order and the special order under
which the Conference was acting and gave the floor
to Dr. Cadman. Four other speakers followed,
some of them being interrupted by questions from
the floor. In the midst of the debate a member rose
to a question of privilege, asking that a certain ven-
erable minister be invited to a seat on the platform.
The question was ruled not to be one of privilege.
Another ballot for Bishop was taken. Then a motion
was made to begin balloting on the election of Mis-
sionary Bishops. The mover withdrew his motion
in order that Dr. Buckley might state a "matter of
importance." Then the rules were suspended, and
a rapid fire followed as to whether a certain member
was in order. Finally it was decided to vote on Mis-
sionary Bishops. Three or four rather nice parlia-

THE PRESIDING OFFICER 6^

mentary points arose here. The vote was taken,
with the floor still technically in possession of a
member who had been recognized to speak on the
time limit. After the recess three incidental reso-
lutions were introduced and then a fraternal delegate
appeared to be heard. After the address the report
of the tellers on the ballot for Bishops came in. Dr.
J. F. Berry, high up on the list of those voted for,
withdrew his name, amid protests from his friends.
Charles B. Lore moved to postpone indefinitely
further balloting for Bishops. On a count vote the
motion was lost. The report of election for Mis-
sionary Bishops came in and Dr. Parker and Dr.
Warne were declared elected. Then there was an
address from another fraternal delegate. Then the
delegate who had the floor all this time for the time-
limit debate got a chance to be heard. Then another
delegate tried to work in a "substitute for a substitute"
when only an "amendment to the substitute" seemed
to the chair to be in order. Two men who thought
they were misunderstood arose and explained. In
the midst of numerous voices calling for a vote on
the time limit the Bishop declared the result of the
ballot for Bishop. Another motion, this time from
Dr. John Lanahan, was made to postpone the voting
for Bishops indefinitely, and after debate was voted
down. Then came adjournment.

This selection, we repeat, is made almost at
random. The question before the Conference
happened to be delicate. The body had voted for
six days for Bishops with no election. Through the
strain of a time when the situation as to the election

70 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

was critical this debate on the time limit was going
on. There was, on the whole, abundant opportunity
for the presiding Bishop to make mistakes which
would have thrown the Conference into uproar. The
opportunities were not embraced. Bishop Andrews
presided throughout.

Ill

THE JUDGE

ANOTHER very important function of the
Bishop is his acting as law judge for the
Church during the intervals between the
sessions of the General Conference. It is true that
the Bishop acts as Judge only while he is actually
in the chair of an Annual Conference, but when we
remember that, to quote the words of Bishop
Andrews himself, in the Annual Conferences "the
chief administrative work of the Church is reviewed,
and either in the first instance or on appeal all charges
against ministers and local preachers are heard, all
appeals from decisions of law made in Quarterly
Conferences, and all complaints of maladministration
by pastors and presiding elders also heard," we can
see how large scope the Bishop has to aid the Church
by whatever judicial ability he may possess.

Bishop Andrews was by temperament a judge, and
association with some very close and dear companions
increased his proficiency in dealing with legal ques-
tions. His brother, Charles Andrews, has been for
years one of the chief figures in the legal circles of
the state of New York, if not of the entire country.
Judge Andrews was elected associate judge of the
New York Court of Appeals in 1870, was appointed
chief judge in 1881, reelected associate judge in
1884, elected chief judge in 1893, nominated by both

71

72 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

parties in 18S4 and 1893, and was retired by the age
limit in 1897. This is a record seldom equaled in
the annals of the legal profession, and when lawyers
like Mr. Joseph H. Choate and Governor Charles
E. Hughes speak of Judge Andrews with profoundest
respect we can form some idea of the quality of the
work done by Judge Andrews in his profession.
Judge George G. Reynolds, for twenty years judge
in courts sitting in Brooklyn, now the dean and Nestor
of the Brooklyn bar, held in highest esteem as one
of the clearest legal minds in New York, was an
intimate companion and counselor of Bishop Andrews
throughout the entire term of the latter's career as
Bishop. Moreover, Bishop Andrews' son-in-law
Mr. Henry C. M. Ingraham, of Brooklyn, has been
for thirty years one of the leaders of the Brooklyn
bar, and has always been especially interested in any
aspect of law which bears upon ecclesiastical pro-
cedure. In the case of Baxter versus McDonnell, Mr.
Ingraham won especial legal distinction by conduct-
ing a successful defense of the position that the judg-
ment of a Church court in any matter within its
jurisdiction is final and cannot be reviewed by any
civil court. Out of the Bishop's intimacy with such
men as Judge Andrews and Judge Reynolds and Mr.
Ingraham came a sympathetic approach to Church
problems on their legal side.

Bishop Andrews was interested not in legal tech-
nicalities but in the use of the law as an instrument
of justice and righteousness. He had no patience
with pettifogging anywhere and scorned the intro-
duction of legal sharp practice into any Church

THE JUDGE 73

procedure. And yet he was always insistent upon
securing for an accused member or minister the last
and the least of his legal rights. If we study the
rulings of Bishop Andrews upon law questions, we
are struck more and more by the directness with which
a mind naturally straightforward in its dealing with
legal principles always refused to allow legal tech-
nicalities to stand in the way of substantial justice,
and by the sureness also with which the Bishop saw
the bearing of certain principles of common law upon
the protection of accused men.

We have been able to find only two cases of any
importance in which appeals against legal decisions
of Bishop Andrews were carried up to the General
Conference. The first was in 1880. The following
question had been put to Bishop Andrews in the
examination of a case in a Conference over which
the Bishop was presiding :

"Question : Is an expelled member entitled to be
heard in an Annual Conference, on complaint against
the administration of the pastor and of the presiding
elder in his case?"

To which the Bishop answered :

"Answer : Such a complaint is of the nature of
an appeal to the Annual Conference on the question
of law concerned in the case, and a hearing cannot
be denied on the ground that the complainant is not
in the Church. But, inasmuch as the Discipline also
provides other and milder remedies for errors in law,
both of a pastor presiding in the trial and presiding
elder presiding in the appeal of a member, it is
obvious that the complaint of maladministration

74 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

ought to refer only to serious errors deeply affecting
the rights of the complainant.

"Failures to observe rules of proceeding laid down,
not in the law but in commentaries on the law, must
be weighed by their effect upon the administration
of justice in the case; not every such failure can be
justly characterized as maladministration.

"Where complaint is made against the administra-
tion in the case of an expelled member, as in all other
charges made against preachers, the Conference may
consider whether the nature of the complaint is such
as to require a trial thereon." (General Conference
Journal, 1880, page 355.)

The very evident aim in this ruling is to preserve
the rights of all concerned. On the one hand, the
expelled member must not be denied any of the legal
rights due him. On the other hand, there should not
be resort to extreme measures against a presiding
church officer, in guarding the rights of the accused,
until the milder remedies have been tried. It will
be seen on a moment's glance that the writer of the
above decision was a man thoroughly in possession
of the legal principles in the case and yet able so to
distinguish between the essential and non-essential as
to keep the course of justice clear. The General
Conference sustained the ruling of Bishop Andrews.

The other case carried up on appeal is discussed
in the General Conference Journal of 1892, pages
489 and 490. A minister had been brought to trial
for slander, the charges of slander being brought
by persons other than the ones slandered. Bishop
Andrews, on the objection of the accused, ruled out

THE JUDGE 75

both the charges and the specifications, holding that
charges of slander could be tried only when they
were brought by persons claiming to have been
slandered. When the counsel for the church offered
to have the charges signed by the persons slandered,
the Bishop ruled that this would constitute a new
case, and he refused to allow the proceedings to go
on. The ground of this decision also is clear. The
accused may have been a slanderer, but even so, he
was entitled to the protection which in common law
is thrown around such accused persons. The evils
which would follow any other line than the one
insisted upon by Bishop Andrews are of course
apparent. The General Conference sustained his
decision.

It is to be seen from the above that Bishop Andrews
was determined, in case men were accused before
him, to have the proceedings carried through aright.
He felt that this was due not only to the accused but
to the church itself, for nothing is more of a scandal
than for a church to use faulty methods in dealing
with offenders. Better that hypocrites should remain
in the ministry than that they should be expelled
without due regard to their rights. Of course evil
men can take advantage of this and presume upon
the fears of their brethren lest trouble should arise
through expelling a member, but some such risk has
always to be taken.

This matter of regularity in dealing with accused
men was much on the mind of Bishop Andrews
in the later years of his life. He was impressed
with the difficulties of getting fair treatment for an

76 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

accused man if the case did not start aright in the
beginning. This does not mean that anyone intention-
ally would be unfair, but it does mean that the
machinery of any large body like the Methodist
Church is necessarily cumbrous in dealing with the
finer aspects of judicial treatment, and that with a
case once started it may be practically impossible to
correct errors. To be sure, there is the possibility
of appeal to the highest court, even the General
Conference, but the General Conference acts through
a Judiciary Committee. The members of this com-
mittee belong to the General Conference. They have
to attend the regular sessions of the Conference; they
belong also on other committees; they have at the
most just one month in which to do their work.
More and more the Conference refers to the Judiciary
Committee important questions for determination as
to their constitutional bearings. If we said that the
Judiciary Committee sat altogether through a General
Conference for a sum total in time of sixty hours,
we should probably not be understating the fact.
Now, it is very easy to say that the humblest minister
in our Church has the right of appeal through the
Judicial Conference clear on up to the General Con-
ference; but suppose the minister's case is passed on
in the fall of the year just following the meeting of
the General Conference in May. After the hearing
by the Judicial Conference the minister has to wait
nearly three years for the final hearing. That final
hearing takes place in the rush and roar of great
ecclesiastical excitement, where the chances for
judicial calm are not altogether favorable. More-

THE JUDGE 77

over, the "humblest minister in our denomination*'
is not apt to have a salary of large proportions. He
must go to the Conference himself if he wants to
make sure that his case will be rightly handled. No
statement on paper can take the place of actually
being present to answer whatever questions may come
up. The Conference may meet on the other side of
the continent from the field of the minister ; and even
if the minister or his counsel goes to the Conference,
he may just as well count on staying the whole month,
for there is no telling when his particular case will
be reached. Now, no one who has read the correspond-
ence of Bishop Andrews, when questions by ministers
or other Bishops have been put to him for advice, can
fail to discern how careful he was that all legal pro-
ceedings should start aright. So far as he himself
was concerned, he would not let a case get a start at
all unless there were absolutely correct methods of
procedure in the very drawing of the charges. If the
charges were correctly drawn, and there seemed any
other way of dealing with the case except formal trial,
Bishop Andrews would throw all his personal influ-
ence in favor of that other way. This does not mean
that Bishop Andrews was lenient with ministerial
offenders. He would not tolerate any falling short
of the highest moral standards for the minister, but
he deprecated a formal trial except as a last resort.
It is true that in many an instance he carried in the
depths of his own heart knowledge of ministerial
transgression even when the transgressor himself did
not know that the Bishop knew, and that in such
instances he gave the minister the benefit of the doubt

78 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

and credited him with every good that could be set
over against the evil. It is true that he was wilhng
to do all he could to give a disgraced minister a new
start in another part of the country than the place of
his offense if the guilty man showed through a period
of years the proper spirit of repentance. But it is
also true that Bishop Andrews could be indignant
to the point of righteous fury with an offender. A
hot-tempered minister in the anteroom of an Annual
Conference once lost himself in a sudden moment of
anger and broke forth with a curse. Either the
Bishop himself was near enough to hear the outburst,
or the incident was so public that he heard of it from
the general conversation almost at once. Now, here
was a chance for a summary church procedure. The
minister could have been justly brought to trial at
once for immoral conduct, and there could hardly
have been more than one outcome. Quite likely, the
sentence in such a case would have been a reprimand
from the Bishop, if the minister showed an apologetic
and repentant spirit. As it was. Bishop Andrews
went to the offender privately. What followed we
do not know in detail, but the offender's statement
indicated that the rebuke which he had met with
had been fearful. In this instance the offender
received the same penalty he would have likely
received if he had been formally tried, and as it was
he received it under circumstances which made it ten-
fold more effective. The incident is a very fair
illustration of the method of Bishop Andrews. He
felt that except in extreme cases it was not wise to
resort to formal trial, and he felt that where correction

THE JUDGE 79

was the object aimed at it could be attained in much
more effective ways. When it was necessary to
have a trial he felt that the Bishop was culpable
if he did not make sure that the start at least
was right.

There was another point, on which the Bishop had
strong feelings, which may as well be mentioned in
this connection. It happens occasionally that when
a minister has been before the public in a way
which has aroused criticism of his conduct, some
leader will think that a resolution expressing the
opinion of the Conference on the conduct of the
member is in order for the purpose of rebuking the
member or of setting the Conference right before the
public. This is, of course, most likely to happen
when the member's theological utterances have be-
come questionable, but it occasionally happens also
in connection with other matters. Bishop Andrews
used to insist that no motion could be put to vote
before a Conference w^iich in any way reflected upon
the moral or doctrinal soundness of a member of
the Conference unless the member had first been
tried in the regular way. To be sure, the legal mind
is likely to take offense at this position. It seems to
many inherent in the rights of a Conference as a
parliamentary body that the Conference should be
able to pass any resolution of this kind it sees fit.
Bishop Andrews did not think so. He felt that the
rights of the ministers ought to be most carefully
guarded from the possibility of attacks of this kind,
and in repeated discussions of the point declared his
belief that the General Conference ought to sustain

8o EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

to the utmost any Bishop who would rule out such
condemnatory motions.

We pass from the discussion of these rather un-
interesting points to other considerations which
showed the Bishop's absolute fidelity to what he con-
sidered the legal requirements in a given situation.
We have spoken of the utter loyalty of Bishop
Andrews to the General Conference. He respected
the decisions of the supreme legislative body as if
they were final and binding in the spheres where the
Conference had a right to speak. He understood the
liability of the Conference, however, to overlook some
considerations which careful scrutiny might reveal as
altogether decisive. Moreover, he felt that the Gen-
eral Conference must always move within the legal
restrictions placed upon it by the very nature of the
case. He knew how prone a Conference is to reflect
the temper which may prevail in the country at any
particular moment. The Conference which met at
Los Angeles in 1904 and the Conference which met
at Baltimore in 1908, for example, were as far apart
in temper as any two Conferences could well be. It
may not be amiss to suggest that the difference came
in large part from the difference in the spirit of the
country at the two different times. The air in 1904
was full of radicalism. The air in 1908 had cooled
down quite perceptibly. In spite of the fact that the
General Conference of 1908 was composed of men
in hundreds who had never been to a General Con-
ference before, the General Conference of 1908 was
very conservative.

Now, Bishop Andrews felt that when a General

THE JUDGE 8i

Conference became radical it must not become so
radical as to overlook the legal limitations in the
midst of whicli it must move, just as he would have
insisted that a Conference must not become so con-
servative as to forbid legitimate advance. The Gen-
eral Conference of 1904 insisted upon the consolida-
tion of certain benevolent societies in the Methodist
Episcopal Church. Bishop Andrews was a member
of the governing board of one of these societies — the
Board of Education, incorporated under the laws of
the State of New York. After repeated conferences
with Air. Ingraham, also a member of the board, the
Bishop became convinced that various plans for the
consolidation were incompatible with the legal re-
quirements of the State of New York governing the
Board of Education, and he would not yield to any
appeals to the authority of the General Conference
until he had found a plan which satisfied his advisers
that all the legal conditions could be met. This seems
very mild and proper when thus put, but the bare
statement gives no idea of the tenacity with whicli
Bishop Andrews held to his contention as against
those who claimed to represent the General Confer-
ence. He would have been willing to see the wish
of the General Conference as expressed in formal
vote disregarded if he had to make any slightest
deviation from what he conceived to be his legal duty
as a member of the Board of Education. If his con-
tention as to the strict fulfilment of the legal require-
ments had not been met, he would have had nothing
to do with the movement toward consolidation. One
of the forces which blocked the complete carrying

82 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

out of the will of the General Conference of 1904 as
to consolidation was the obstinate resistance of Bishop
Andrews to a movement which he considered in some
of its details out of harmony with the legal provisions
under which he worked as trustee of the Board of
Education. How determined Bishop Andrews could
be under such circumstances, and how far he was
willing to go in his opposition, will appear from the
fact that he was willing to vote to take the Board
out from under the control of the organization author-
ized by the General Conference. We do not pretend
to say whether the reasoning of Bishop Andrews in
this argument was correct or not. We do say that
his spirit was the spirit of a true servant of the Church
when he insisted that the Church activities should
flawlessly keep all legal requirements which trustees
are pledged to observe. Bishop Andrews was no
stickler for legal refinements, but he would never
allow any organizations over which he had control
to move along at loose ends or with dubious patch-
work compromises.

In all this discussion of the legal services of Bishop
Andrews to the Church we must be careful to remem-
ber that the influence of the Bishop reached out be-
yond anything which he himself did as a judge sit-
ting in Conference sessions. His weight as a legal
authority on the Board of Bishops is conceded by all
other members of the board. He was written to
almost daily by presiding elders and pastors as to
how to deal with legal situations. It would be hard
to overestimate his power in keeping the Church to
the straight path of the legally proper.

IV

THE RESIDENT BISHOP

THE first episcopal residence which Bishop
Andrews held was in Des Moines, Iowa.
The General Conference of 1872 had
provided for an episcopal residence at Omaha,
Council Bluffs, or vicinity. On reaching his new field
the Bishop was impelled by a variety of considerations
to settle upon Des Moines. He remained in Des
Moines until 1880, serving faithfully all the interests
of the Church which he could find time to touch. The
following letters will show the impression he made
upon the community :

Dr. A. L. Frisbie, pastor emeritus of Plymouth
Congregational Church, Des Moines, writes :

"Bishop Andrews w^as a near neighbor of mine
while his official home was in Des Moines. He was
a near friend as well. He had that sincere urbanity
which made approach to him and acquaintance with
him easy and delightful. He was the incarnation
of courtesy.

"If the personality of any man could have won an
old-line dyed-in-the-wool independent to an accept-
ance of episcopal authority, that of Bishop Andrews
would have won our own.

"I admired the man very much. He seemed to me
tactful, discriminating, and catholic. He did not,
because he was a Bishop, 'think of himself more

83

84 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

highly than he ought to think,' but was of simple
and unaffected manners, whom any poor brother
working under him could approach with a comfort-
able assurance of sympathetic treatment and wise
counsel. If there were iron fingers under the velvet
gloves, an outsider, like myself, would never have
suspected it.

"His relations here with Christians not Methodist
were as much ideal as could well be while the reality
of difference existed. Doubtless he would have been
willing to take us into the fold of which he was an
overseer, but he made no impression by work or man-
ner that he regarded his system of church life as
superior to ours.

"He was a rare man in the pulpit. His beautiful
presence, his illuminated countenance, his eloquence
of expression, his spiritual grasp, charmed my
people when, at my invitation, he gave a sermon in
Plymouth Church."

Mr. L. H. Bush, of Des Moines, writes :

"Des Moines was an episcopal residence for eight
years. During that time Bishop Andrews went
abroad once and presided over Conferences in almost
every State in the Union. He lectured in many cities
and preached in many pulpits outside of Des Moines.
The Bishop was in his prime, was very active, was
popular with all classes, with all denominations, and
with our public men. During the sessions of the
Legislature he entertained socially and was the recip-
ient of many favors from the best the State afforded.

"Bishop Andrews's membership was with the First
Methodist Episcopal Church, the oldest organization

THE RESIDENT BISHOP 85

in the city. Des Moines was then a small town. The
congregation worshiped in an old brick church, sur-
rounded by business. It was finally resolved to sell
the property, move up town, and build a new church.
A location was selected, Bishop Andrews made a
member of the Building Committee, and he took
great interest in the enterprise and finally dedicated
a very handsome church that cost $40,000, free of
debt.

"Bishop Andrews was extremely popular. His
bearing, personal appearance, courteous manner, and
great sermons were attractive to all classes, and when
it was announced that he was to leave Des Moines
for Washington remonstrances from all over Iowa,
from all denominations, and especially from our own
people, were sent in, but powers that made him a
Bishop and resident of Des Moines removed him to
the East."

In 1880 Bishop Andrews took up his episcopal
residence in Washington. He reached Washington
just before the close of the administration of Pres-
ident Hayes, and during the closing months of the
President's administration was a frequent visitor at
the White House. From that time on to 1888, when
he removed to New York, Bishop Andrews was an
alert and interested observer at the capital of all
large political events. He became acquainted with
most of the public leaders through that period, and
his advice was sought for by national leaders on many
public questions. It is in New York, however, in the
period from 1888 to 1904, that his influence as a
resident Bishop can best be studied.

86 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

As every Methodist knows, a resident Bishop is
not a diocesan Bishop. There are no diocesan
Bishops as such in the Methodist Church, though the
work of the presiding elder, now called district super-
intendent (as previously observed), is practically the
work of the diocesan Bishop. Writing in 1897,
Bishop Andrews said : "In the State of New York
are five dioceses of the Protestant Episcopal Church,
but the State comprises thirty presiding elders'
districts, each receiving the continuous visitation of
an experienced, and usually an able, ecclesiastical ad-
ministrator." The resident Bishop has less control
over the churches of his particular place of residence
than has the district superintendent of that particular
field, except in the occasional years when the Bishop
is presiding over the Conference of his home city.
There is little that the Bishop can do, as a resi-
dent Bishop, by the exertion of direct authority, for
he has but little authority to exert. There is much,
however, which he can do through his personal in-
fluence. His knowledge of the field ordinarily counts
much with the Bishop who does preside, and he can
influence the appointments that are made. And, again,
the resident Bishop can have great influence with the
churches. It is hardly likely, for example, that a
church in a city like New York will call a minister,
especially one from a distance, without saying some-
thing about the intention to the resident Bishop. On
all other church questions also the advice of the Bishop
is sought. The resident Bishop thus becomes as great
a local force as we may expect considering the fact that
the Methodist Church does not and cannot lay stress

THE RESIDENT BISHOP 87

on the factor of residence in a Bishop's work, for there
is no effective way of combining general superintend-
ency with minute supervision of a particular field. The
Church as a whole can hardly be said to interest itself
much even in the kind of material surroundings which
the Bishop meets as he goes to his new home. There
are episcopal residences here and there, but these are
ordinarily the property of some local organization.
In New York, with house rents at a fabulous figure,
the Bishop is left to provide accommodations for him-
self as best he may.

The work of a Bishop as a resident Bishop is almost
wholly the result of personal influence. With Bishop
Andrews in New York this reached great effective-
ness. To begin with, he knew New York on the
ecclesiastical side. He saw the difficulties of the field
as few men have ever seen them. He lived through
a period of great change in the city. When Bishop
Andrews was assigned to New York in 1888 there
w^as hardly a trolley line in the country. The appli-
cation of electricity to urban and interurban railroads
has wrought a transformation in the church problems
of New York. The practical result has been to
equalize many suburban places so far as their accessi-
bility from the city is concerned, and this makes for
a very shifting and unstable church population. The
moving from church tO' church is almost incredible,
so that, as has already been said, the pastor may
soon become almost the only fixity in a church com-
munity except the building itself. Bishop Andrews
appreciated this elemental difficulty. He appreciated,
too, the newness of the problems raised by city con-

88 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

ditions. In the days of the early itinerants the frontier
was in the west. The students of sociology point out
to us the vast social consequences that followed the
fact that out yonder upon the frontier there was land
enough and to spare, that if a man felt crowded or
annoyed by his neighbors he could move on. This
brought a problem new to the world, and out of it
all came a growth of individualistic democracy. In
our day the frontier is in a sense in the city, and
the world is facing new problems from the fact that
people are being forced to live closer and closer to-
gether whether they like it or not. The problems
thus raised are new problems and open up vast
advances for social democracy, if not of socialism.
In any case the pioneer work is to-day done quite
largely in city appointments.

Bishop Andrews saw this. He discerned the
passion for novelty that is part of modern city life.
In repeated conversations he told how many men he
had seen come and "take" for a while and then drop
out of view. He was constantly on the alert for the
qualities in city pastors that would wear. A young
minister making an altogether extraordinary success
in a small city sought the Bishop's advice as to taking
a New York appointment. The Bishop urgently ad-
vised the young man to remain where he was except
upon absolutely unmistakable indications that his duty
lay toward the metropolis. The Bishop distrusted the
effectiveness of the more brilliant qualities in city
ministers, and felt that only the solidest abilities
would long stand the strain of city work. He felt,
too, that the best work was really being done by the

THE RESIDENT BISHOP 89

men who were attracting no great amount of public
attention.

Bishop Andrews knew New York. Whenever he
was in the city and was not preaching himself, he
usually attended the church of his family, Madison
Avenue, in the morning, and in the evening often
went about inspecting the methods of the various
other congregations. After years of such observa-
tion he came to clearly defined opinions about the
Church situation in New York, though he was care-
ful not to hold his opinions so tightly that they ad-
mitted of no modification. First of all, he grew to
the belief that the city of New York has its own
problems in a sense true of no other city where Metho-
dism has established itself. He did not think that
observation in any other city or experience gained in
any other city would be of much help in solving New
York problems. The enormous growth of the city,
the physical configuration which forces extremes of
fashion and of poverty into such close proximity,
the migration hither of the peoples from beyond the
seas who naturally gravitate toward the separate race
quarters, the vast movement of Americans also to
New York — these and a hundred other factors made
the Bishop feel that the problem was altogether
unique. When a celebrated London worker came to
this country a few years ago and told the churches of
the ease with which the problems of New York could
be solved, the Bishop in conversation about the
Englishman's address went on to show the utter dif-
ferences between New York and London from the
standpoint of the Church problem. The Bishop felt

90 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

that even the spirit of the New York population is
different from that of any other city. An evangehstic
procession at midnight through the slums of London
for the sake of reaching the outcast, the procession
composed of hundreds of church people from the more
well-to-do classes, will be taken very seriously by the
slums of London, but may be taken with any-
thing but seriousness by the slums of New York.
The total difference between New York and anything
else on earth Bishop Andrews very thoroughly under-
stood.

Out of the familiarity with New York the Bishop
came to admire some special features of the plans of
other denominations for the work in the metropolis.
He had profound respect for one aspect of the policy
of the Roman Catholic Church. No one, of course,
could ever charge him with any sympathy with the
Roman Catholic Church as a system, but some
features of their handling of the New York problem
impressed him very much. He found from his per-
sonal observation that even in the more obscure
metropolitan parishes the Roman Church stations
men of very high character. Instead of finding that
the Catholic Church stamps out individual ability
on the part of its clergy, the Bishop found that the
Church develops priests of a very high order of in-
tellectual and moral strength. He used to tell about
going once to a Catholic church in an East Side
section to learn if something could not be done by
the church for a servant girl in the Bishop's employ
who had taken to drink. The Bishop said that
he went expecting to meet a priest of the kind that

THE RESIDENT BISHOP 91

he had ordinarily supposed priests to be — a good
man, no doubt, but just one of a class with all the class
marks upon him. To his vast astonishment the
Bishop met, in this parish which could hardly have
had any preeminence among the Roman Catholic
parishes of New York, a young man of obvious in-
tellectual strength and of dominating forcefulness.
The Bishop seemed to feel that this experience had
a significance beyond the mere chance encounter with
an extraordinary man. He used to say that so far
as he could see the Roman Church owed a large part
of its effectiveness in dealing with the city problem
to the kind of men it placed in the metropolitan
parishes.

For "institutional" work as such the Bishop had
sympathy, but insisted upon the tendency of such
work to run into the merely "showy." He had
watched closely the development of the largest enter-
prises in New York which lay stress upon this method
of attacking the city problem and was never quite con-
vinced that such work was an adequate solution.
This does not mean that he had the slightest hostility
to the work. With his belief that the problem of
New York was like no other, he was willing to sanc-
tion anything which gave any promise of legitimate
success. Only he did feel that the so-called "institu-
tional" method had to be handled very carefully to
bring about substantial and really religious results.

Perhaps the closest official connection which Bishop
Andrews sustained with specific New York city work
came through his relation to the New York City
Church Extension and Missionary Society, an organ-

92 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

ization which for years has labored to apply the power
of Methodism to the parts of the New York field most
essentially strategic. While in the work of this society
emphasis is laid upon binding a particular strong
church in cooperation with a particular weak one,
so that the strong church can make a specialty of and
be responsible for the weak one, yet the general
method is to touch the needy portions of the city from
the plans of the central office. This type of central-
ized work is one in which Bishop Andrews was very
strong. His mind came more and more to marked
ability to gather up in one grasp an entire field and
to keep the needs of several fields in their right pro-
portion to one another. In deliberations of a board
like that which controls the New York City Church
Extension and Missionary Society the difficulty is
to keep the aid, meager in any case as it must be,
rightly adjusted to all parts of the field. The need
is for men who can see all the field. The service which
Bishop Andrews rendered was largely of this rather
intangible and yet very real kind.

When it seemed necessary to impress the New York
community with the importance of a Methodist cause
through a public meeting, there was but one man for
whom to send to preside, and that man was Bishop
Andrews. A resident Bishop has much of this repre-
sentative work to do. Sometimes the importance
of such work is minimized, or even sneered at, but
no one felt inclined to belittle such service as it was
rendered by Bishop Andrews. The Thank Offering
Movement in New York in 1901 to 1903 for the rais-
ing of a million dollars in New York city held a great

THE RESIDENT BISHOP 93

meeting in Carnegie Hall in connection with the enter-
prise in February, 1903. It was fitting that Bishop
Andrews should speak at this meeting. He had taken
part in the discussions of the New York City Church
Extension and Missionary Society, out of which the
movement had come. He had been especially con-
cerned in the selection of the efficient secretary of the
movement. Dr. Ezra Squier Tipple. He had written
the statement on which the movement had gone be-
fore the people. It was proper that he should be on
the program to lend dignity to the meeting, if for
no other reason. President Roosevelt came from
Washington to deliver an address on Methodism, but
it is just to say that Mr. Roosevelt himself lent no
more importance to the occasion than did Bishop
Andrews. The Bishop did more than lend dignity.
It was after ten o'clock before he began to speak, but
his address was a cogent supplement to what Mr.
Roosevelt had said. Mr. Roosevelt, with a knowledge
of the westward movements of national life in our
country perhaps unsurpassed by any historian who
has ever written of them, was qualified to speak of
the part played by the saddlebags Methodist preacher
in the civilization and moral upbuilding of the West.
Bishop Andrews, with a comprehensiveness of view
the result of years of experience in looking at move-
ments from their world-wide significance, in a few
strokes set before the audience the significance of
Methodism for the whole world. The bearing of the
Bishop, his physical power, the grasp of his mind,
made him on this trying occasion a figure of which
universal Methodism might well have been proud.

94 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

His position on the program lifted the occasion into
an importance which made the meeting more than
an enthusiastic jubilee occasion. And the Bishop
always did this in his presidencies over the great
Church meetings in the metropolis.

Bishop Andrews came very quickly after his re-
moval to New York in 1888 to have great personal
influence with the leading laymen of New York city.
They valued him because of what he was and of what
he brought to them. It was no small power that
could influence as graciously and yet as decisively as
he did men some of whom were business leaders in
New York. Men like Mr. Anderson Fowler and Mr.
Bowles Colgate and Mr. Walter C. Carter, to mention
only some who have passed away, believed pro-
foundly in Bishop Andrews. These were not men
who would give such honor as they gave to Bishop
Andrews merely because he held the office of Bishop.
They gave the honor because Edward G. Andrews
was Bishop in every sense of the word.

Whether with laymen or ministers it was as adviser
and counselor that Bishop Andrews did his most im-
portant work while in New York. As we have already
indicated, the position as resident Bishop does not
give any large scope for origination of policies, but
it does furnish opportunity for sound counselings.
When we consider the vast number of projects sub-
mitted to Bishop Andrews in the nearly twenty years
of his episcopal residence in New York and Brooklyn
— and we must remember that the advice of Bishop
Andrews was sought no less after his retirement
than before — we can form some notion of the service

THE RESIDENT BISHOP 95

which he rendered both by encouragement and
restraint.

The Bishop was a good Hstener. The humblest
minister in the denomination might come with the
confidence that Bishop Andrews would hear patiently
what he had to say. With those whom the Bishop
knew well there was one characteristic in his dealing
which might occasionally pass for impatience. He
would now and then hurry along the one talking with
him by an expression which showed that he was anx-
ious to get at the point. If one did not know the
Bishop this was apt to be disconcerting, but the im-
patience did not come from irritability so much as
from the workings of a mind which, while it was
listening, was running on ahead of the speaker. The
Bishop had trained himself to speak very directly and
to the point, and if he felt that he knew the one with
whom he was talking he might by sharp, incisive
question keep the conversation more closely to the
track than the talker could alone. The only criticisms
which we have ever heard on the bearing of Bishop
Andrews with men came out of this characteristic.
The characteristic was most marked when the conver-
sation embraced matters with which the Bishop had
carefully familiarized himself. The peculiarity was
one of the mind rather than of the heart; and, as we
have said, was shown more to those who knew the
Bishop well than to strangers.

A second quality which made Bishop Andrews in-
valuable as a counselor was his absolute fidelity to
the confidences reposed in him by those who sought
his advice. The outside world does not know the

96 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

extent to which the Protestant ministers are repos-
itories of all manner of secret communications, for
it has been ordinarily supposed that the Roman
Catholic priests stand alone in the extent to which
they are compelled to know and bear secrets in silence.
At least four cases where the Bishop kept confidences
when almost every consideration, except simply the
fact that the communication of the secret had been
made in confidence, would have led the Bishop to
speak out, have come to the knowledge of the writer
of these pages. In each case it happened that not
only an individual but an institution was seriously
involved. If in any one of the cases the Bishop had
declared that the gravity of the revelation forbade his
longer holding silence, there would have been almost
unanimous approval of his speaking. As it happened,
however, the crisis in every one of the situations was
happily passed without the Bishop's saying anything.
In one of the matters especially the Bishop was time
and again thrown into positions where it was almost
inevitable that he would have to show in some way
that he had been admitted to a knowledge of a terrible
inner secret, but no word escaped his lips, nor any tell-
tale change of expression crossed his countenance.
The Bishop himself was so refined that confession of
wrongdoing made to him by the wrongdoer was apt
to be revolting, but he never acted the brother more
truly than in the part of confessor and confidant.
His knowledge of facts more than once placed him
in situations of great strain, but he gave no sign of
the strain. When we think of the Bishop's own up-
rightness we have to feel more and more admiration

THE RESIDENT BISHOP 97

for the patience and tenderness he showed toward
those who fell into evils which he from the very mold
of his nature could never have understood. His sym-
pathy was not the sympathy of one who had himself
learned charity through being overtaken in a fault,
but the sympathy of one who saw the value of the
lives, guilty though they might be, and of one who
hoped that a single failure might possibly, with the
help of kind counsel, save from further fall. A young
man who in the opening years of his ministry had
been guilty of misdoing and had been compelled to
leave the ministry, in after years applied to Bishop
Andrews for another chance, or, rather, came to the
Bishop for his help in getting a start. The Bishop
was familiar with the facts as to the early lapse. After
patient consideration of the whole case he urged the
reception of the man into the ministry again in an-
other part of the country from that where the mis-
take had been made. The man was received and his
after career was full of honor. He never would have
been received if it had not been for Bishop Andrews,
Once more we have to say of the Bishop that he
made a great counselor through his keen insight and
his sturdy common sense. A prominent representa-
tive of a sister denomination, a man whose name
would probably be recognized as that of one of the
most famous church leaders in America if it should
be printed on this page, appeared one day in the
Bishop's office at 150 Fifth Avenue, New York, seek-
ing to interest the Methodist authorities in proposi-
tions for cooperation in church work which had se-
cured the sanction of the Roman Catholic Church.

98 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

The Bishop read the propositions through and pointed
out to the caller the fact that hidden away in the
careful sanction of the Roman authorities were implica-
tions and reservations to which no representative of
a Protestant body could accede. The Bishop did not
mean that the Roman authorities had intentionally
sought to blind the eyes of a too-trusting Protestant.
He, rather, took it that the couching of the proposi-
tion in the particular terms had been a delicate way
of declining to act with Protestant bodies, and so
stated his thought to the Protestant leader who had
called upon him. The leader retired very much dis-
comfited. It would have been incredible that anyone
could have deceived the direct mind of Bishop
Andrews by roundabout phrasings or could have con-
fused his logical sense by keeping implications out
of sight. President McKinley was once engaged on
a document which required the utmost delicacy in
diplomatic statement. It was necessary that the paper
suggest much and yet say little. The President
handed a tentative draft of the paper to the Bishop
with the question : "What do you make of it ?" The
Bishop handed the paper back with the remark : "Most
of it is between the lines." Whoever handed papers
to Bishop Andrews speedily learned that the Bishop
could understand what was between the lines.

The Bishop was seldom deceived by the man who
was talking to him. He was especially keen in seeing
through the men who came to enlist his help in carrying
out their own personal ecclesiastical ambitions. He
was full of the kindliest charity for the men who
sought positions for themselves, though he never

THE RESIDENT BISHOP 99

could see how men could bring themselves to take
active part in, if not control of, their own "cam-
paigns." This problem never ceased to be myste-
rious to him, though he recognized the worth and
goodness of some men who did think themselves called
of God to help themselves to high position. He felt
that some men could have acted more creditably in
such affairs if they had been possessed of a sense of
humor. Some of us can hear yet the Bishop's
laughter at the urgency of some good men who
naively supposed themselves chosen of the Lord for
every influential position that might open. On one
occasion one of these serious aspirants came to the
Bishop with a formal statement drawn up in thirteen
enumerated propositions as to why the Bishop should
support him for a particular place. "This is a reason
why he should, not be advanced," said the Bishop as
he looked at reason number one. And so on with two,
three, four and five, clear down to the foot of the
list. One of the reasons was that in the new position
the aspirant would have more time for occupations
outside the direct line of his work! This man did
afterward, without the sanction of Bishop Andrews,
come to a position of prominence and for a time made
a great stir. The enthusiastic applause of the people
was looked upon by some as an indication that the
Bishop Tiad for once been mistaken. "While the
people are applauding," the Bishop quietly remarked,
"thoughtful men are anxious for the success of the en-
terprise of which our brother has obtained control" —
an anxiety which was justified by the after events.
Underneath all the Bishop's advice was this sturdy

lOo EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

common sense which served the Church in many dif-
ficult situations. He had an unerring abihty, for
example, to see just how far a rule in any case could
be disregarded. He was a master in dealing with
proposals that have wrapped up in a regular form of
ecclesiastical procedure an inner heart of folly. He
well knew that no ecclesiastical system could be made
proof against the willing trouble-maker. No small
weariness and disgust was caused him in the closing
years of his life by the seriousness with which many
of the Church officials treated complaints of one kind
and another which, however correctly drawn in form,
ought to have been cast into the fire. A single in-
stance will illustrate his own temper in matters of
this nature. A minister in charge of an important
church near New York was thrown into a quandary
by the performances of one of his zealous members,
who insisted that paragraph 248, prescribing trial
for indulgence in specified forms of amusement, ought
to be carried out to the letter. This member was not
willing to leave the matter in the hands of the min-
ister, but went throughout the parish collecting what
he was pleased to call "evidence." Then he filed
charges with the minister against certain members
of the church. The charges were regularly drawn,
for in spite of this eccentricity the man was a person
of some intelligence and of some leadership in the
church. The minister went to 150 Fifth Avenue to
talk the matter over with the resident Bishop.
Bishop Andrews looked the charges through. "Throw
them into the wastebasket," he said. "But they are
regularly drawn. Bishop," replied the minister, "and

THE RESIDENT BISHOP loi

he offers to make them good by his evidence." "No
matter," said Bishop Andrews, with that short de-
cisiveness which those who knew him will remember,
"throw them into the wastebasket. If he sends you
any more, throw those into the wastebasket too. If
he files complaint against you for maladministration
in refusing to act on these charges, come to me and
I'll take care of you." Then he added : "The Aletho-
dist Church is opposed to worldliness, but that does
not mean that she will allow individuals to set them-
selves up as censors and detectives after the fashion
of this man." Bishop Andrews went on the principle
that regularity in formal charges against ministers
and laymen should not save the charges from the
wastebasket if they are not the expression of regularity
in the mental and moral processes of the men who
formulate them.

V
ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE BOARDS

AT the funeral of Mr. John Bentley, held in
the New York Avenue Church of Brooklyn
in February, 1906, Bishop Andrews was
one of the speakers. Mr. Bentley was a prominent
Brooklyn Methodist, of rare serviceableness on the
various Church boards which meet in and about New
York. Bishop Andrews delivered a brief but im-
pressive tribute to the worth of Mr. Bentley. The
one idea which the Bishop brought out was that when-
ever he, the Bishop, attended a meeting of the Mis-
sionary Board in New York he found John Bentley
present; that Mr. Bentley remained to the end of the
session no matter how long the session might be;
that when he attended a meeting of the trustees of
the John Street Trust Fund he found Mr. Bentley,
who never left till the work had been completed; that
when the Bishop met with the trustees of the Metho-
dist Hospital he found Mr. Bentley there, determined
to remain to the end. And so on through a long list
of Methodist organizations. By the time Bishop
Andrews had reached the end of the list it was seen
by everyone in the house how completely Mr. Bentley's
works themselves spoke of the faithfulness of the
many years of service. The tribute to Mr. Bentley
was entirely deserved, but in paying it the Bishop was
unconsciously making a revelation of his own faith-

ON ADMINISTRATIVE BOARDS 103

fulness. Bishop Andrews would never have spoken
of Mr. Bentley as he did if he had for a moment
thought that the tribute to Mr. Bentley would in
the very nature of the case be seen as a revelation of
the Bishop's own faithfulness. It is well, however,
that the Bishop all unconsciously to himself turned
the thought of the people toward the thoroughness
with which he himself was serving the Church
through her various administrative boards.

Much of the work of the Methodist Episcopal
Church is carried on through the work of boards or
committees which meet at stated intervals. The
Bishops meet twice a year. Following their autumn
meeting the General Missionary Committee — we
speak now of the days before the reorganization of
the benevolences — met in some nearby city, and the
Bishops attended the sessions as ex officio members.
After that the Board of Church Extension would meet
and the meeting of the Freedmen's Aid and Southern
Education would perhaps come at about the same
time. So that, beginning w'ith the meeting of the
Bishops, there might be three or more weeks of al-
most continuous service on boards into whose power
had been committed the enterprises of the Church.
And this was not all. The Missionary Board, into
whose control came the work in the fields between
the meetings of that Annual Missionary Committee
whose duty was largely money-appropriation, as-
sembled in New York once a month. The Bishop,
as we have already seen, was on the controlling Boards
of the New York City Church Extension and Mis-
sionary Society, the Methodist Episcopal Hospital,

I04 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

the John Street Trust Fund, and other boards really
too numerous to mention here. He attended these
boards whenever he could reach them. Of the larger
committee meetings he missed but one except during
the time when he was out of the country on episcopal
supervision.

It would be enlightening to the Church to realize
at what a cost of time and effort these meetings are
carried on, and how willingly the service is rendered
by ministers and laymen. If a minister in or near
New York attains to anything of reputation for sound
judgment in administrative matters, he is very apt
sooner or later to be called to the service of the ad-
ministrative boards which center at New York. The
more prominent laymen also are called upon. All
manner of questions come before the boards, some
of them of apparently no significance. Yet for the
sake of economy the men whose time is too valuable
to give to like considerations in their own work will
listen patiently to these discussions in the committees.
Some details of an insignificant kind have to be con-
sidered. One of the boards now doing effective work
in New York is composed in part of men whose own
business transactions annually run into large figures.
The details of their own work are managed by sub-
ordinates. Yet these men will sit for three hours
once every month trying to save money for an im-
portant interest by devising minute economies in
janitor hire and telephone service and electric or gas
supplies. What in their own business they would not
consider for three minutes they will in this board
consider for three hours, simply because the Church

ON ADMINISTRATIVE BOARDS 105

has placed upon them the responsibihty for the right
expenditure of the benevolent funds. The sum total
of such service which simply must be attended to in
this way reaches every year into incredible pro-
portions.

Among the most faithful in the patient attention
even to details of this kind Bishop Andrews must be
given a leading place. He had no patience with the
men who shirk these things and talk in large terms
of their interest only in the "greater issues." He
would wade through ream after ream of minute re-
port just to be sure that he understood. Under his
expressed opinion there was a basis of hard work. A
member of the Missionary Committee, who for years
astonished the Committee and the Church with his
minute and detai'ed knowledge of every question
which came before the board, was for a long time
thought to succeed simply by the easy and natural
operation of a mind extraordinarily alert. The fact
was that this particular committeeman always took
with him to the meetings a trunk full of missionary
documents, and while the other members were at-
tending receptions in the evening he was at work on
the documents. But Bishop Andrews as a Bishop
had to attend the receptions, and he knew the busi-
ness as well as the committeeman. How in the multi-
tude of social engagements he found time to learn
the minutiae of the board business is one of the
mysteries, for the details had to be learned. They
were not matters to be discovered by processes of re-
flection or imagination.

In one way the imagination of the Bishop served

io6 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

the Church through this attention to details. We
have already spoken of the power of the Bishop to
gather into one whole all the field of the Church activ-
ities. He knew how to fit part to part and keep the
necessary proportion. When he was sitting on the
Missionary Board he did not forget that he was a
Bishop of the Church, a member of the Board of
Church Extension, and of all the other boards. The
needs of the field were uppermost in his mind. When
the afternoon of the session of the Missionary Board
at 150 Fifth Avenue wore along, and the approach
of dinner hour tempted some away from the tedium
of the routine, he gathered his thought even more
intently upon the business before the body. He saw
the wants of the missionaries beyond the seas, and if
others forgot those wants in their own weariness, and
allowed the meeting to shrink more and more toward
the dimensions of bare quorum, the importance of
the duty left upon Bishop Andrews seemed to him to
increase. Many a time his heart was heavy at the
thought of deciding questions affecting the welfare
of vast bodies of men in foreign lands by the votes
of just a quorum of the Missionary Board. This is
no reflection on the board, for the amount of sacrifice
in the transactions of all assemblies of the kind both
by ministers and laymen is very great. It does mean,
however, that the fact that others felt forced to leave
before the sessions were finished made the Bishop
feel that he was forced to remain until the last item
was completed.

Space forbids more than brief mention of the re-
lation of the Bishop to particular administrative

ON ADMINISTRATIVE BOARDS 107

boards. If we think first of the Board of Bishops
itself we must remember that Bishop Andrews was
for years secretary of the board. The papers which
he left behind at his death showing the treatment of
some special cases by the Bishops are models of sec-
retarial efficiency. Documents were all folded in one
form, the name of the subject-matter and the date so
entered upon the outside that even one who knew
nothing of the business concerned could tell at a glance
the general character of the paper. The papers and
correspondence of the Bishop needed no especial re-
arrangement and assortment after he had gone. The
episcopal correspondence which, of course, could not
be published in a book of this kind, shows how clearly
the other members of the board relied upon the
judgment of Bishop i\ndrews in all matters affecting
their administration. An editorial in the Christian
Advocate for January 9, 1908, speaks as follows:

"In 1880 a commission was appointed to revise
the whole ecclesiastical code of the Methodist Epis-
copal Church and report the changes to the General
Conference for discussion and approval. It consisted
of three Bishops, three ministers, and three laymen.
The Board of Bishops selected as their representa-
tives Harris, Merrill, and Andrews. In the com-
mittee Harris proved to be the authority on past legis-
lation; Merrill the discusser of possible consequences
of alterations and additions; Andrews the weigher
of all statements, and the estimator of their fitness to
be incorporated with our system."

Bishop Thoburn writes as follows:

"At our General Missionary Committee meetings

io8 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

he always took an intelligent view of our interests in
India. I have never known him to be rash, on the
one hand, nor have I, on the other hand, ever known
him to take a position of unreasonable opposition to
forward movements. He was always able to ap-
preciate a change in the line of march or in the rate
of progress. If he was sometimes very cautious
he was never, on the other hand, rash. During our
long and I think I may say intimate friendship no
incident, however light or slight, ever occurred which
I could wish to recall. In missionary matters at
home and abroad he was progressive in his views,
vigorous in the measures which he advocated, pru-
dent in finance, and supremely trustful in the Divine
Leader at whose command we had taken up the
great missionary enterprise and were striving to carry
it to a victorious consummation."

Dr. F. D. Gamewell writes :

"The Open Door Commission was organized in
Saint Andrew's Methodist Episcopal Church, New
York, on January 2, 1902, and Bishop Edward G.
Andrews was elected chairman. From that date
until his death, December 31, 1907, he continued in
this position, and some of the largest service rendered
to the Church and the extension of the kingdom of
God throughout the world in his exceptionally long
and preeminently useful life was given in these last
years in the work of the commission. He presided
at the Cleveland Convention — the first and up to
this date the only national missionary convention
ever held by our Church. His intimate knowledge
of the plans of the commission, the result of the time

ON ADMINISTRATIVE BOARDS 109

he had given to the work by his attendance at the
regular meetings and at the special meetings called
for by the consideration of the many important
questions to be determined in connection with the
convention, gave him a mastery of the situation that
exerted a large influence on that remarkable gather-
ing at which three hundred thousand dollars was sub-
scribed for missions.

"At the meeting in New York referred to, as the
little group gathered about a table in one of the
smaller rooms in Saint Andrew's Church and con-
sidered the many important and perplexing questions
of its organization and of carrying forward the ag-
gressive work committed to it, again and again Bishop
Andrews called for a pause in the proceedings, and
in prayer uttered by himself or at his request, sought
divine guidance in the work which was being pro-
jected. One who traveled a thousand miles, to be
present at the meeting said to the writer at the close
of the session of two days that when he started East
he thought the organization of yet another agency
was a mistake; but the Spirit of God, in answer to
prayer, had been so manifestly present, and had so
directed in the organization and plans formulated
that he was sure no mistake had been made."

Bishop Andrews worked on many special commis-
sions appointed by the Church. Dr. W. F. Warren
writes :

"In the year 1888 the General Conference provided
for the appointment of three commissioners who dur-
ing the ensuing quadrennium should 'hold themselves
ready to enter into brotherly conference with all and

no EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

any Christian bodies seeking tlie restoration of the
organic unity of the Church, or the increase of Chris-
tian and Church fraternity.' This 'Commission on
Interecclesiastical Relations,' as it was called, reported
in 1892, and was reappointed for a second quadren-
nium. As Bishop Andrews served as its president,
and I as its secretary the eight years, we came
through correspondence and otherwise into closer
personal relations than ever before. Our interchanges
of thought and sentiment touching the one legitimate
Church of Jesus Christ and touching the manifold-
ness of its legitimate ramifications, revealed and
strengthened our unity of view and congeniality of
spirit. Little of the work of the commission ever
reached the public eye, but its influence was all the
greater in the circles most concerned."

As we hasten through the review of this phase of
the Bishop's service to the Church we should not
forget his relation to the various educational boards.
He was a trustee of Wesleyan University, and as an
alumnus took a very especial interest in the welfare
of his alma mater, being at the time of his death on
the committee which was intrusted with the respon-
sibility of selecting a successor to President Raymond.

President King, of Cornell, the dean of all Metho-
dist college presidents, writes :

"He became a member of the Board of Trustees
of Cornell College, Mount Vernon, Iowa, in 1872
and continued until 1880, and for a considerable
portion of this time he was president of the board.
Also for a part of the time he lived in Mount Vernon,
his children being in college here. As a member of

ON ADMINISTRATIVE BOARDS iii

our Board of Trustees his counsels were always wise,
and his interest in the institution could not have been
greater if it had been his own property. We greatly
regretted losing his influence when he removed from
Iowa to the east, but his friendship and cooperation
continued with almost increasing interest until the
close of his life.

"It was my privilege to serve for many years on
the Board of Education of the Church, he being pres-
ident of that board most of the time. And notwith-
standing his other many cares and responsibilities,
I found him always promptly present with the busi-
ness well in hand, and broadly and accurately in-
formed in regard to the varied work and problems
that came before us. He took a deep interest not
only in the general educational matters of the Church
but in her several institutions, their faculties and their
students. He was a tower of strength in alL educa-
tional councils, as he was in the Church at large.

"His interest was not confined to mere perfunctory
routine, but was individual, personal, and deeply
sympathetic. He had a wide and far-reaching grasp
of all educational problems, and his interest was
never selfish but always benevolent."

Dr. W. H. Crawford, of Allegheny College, writes
of Bishop Andrews's ability to keep always in mind
the primary aim for which a college exists. Dr.
Crawford mentions "his keen appreciation of what
a college means and what a college ought to stand
for. The first item under this is the definition of a
college he gave in an address at my inauguration
fourteen years ago last fall. It was not only a defini^

112 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

tion of a college but a brilliant description of the
changed condition and ideals for American colleges
as illustrated in the history of Wesleyan from the
time of his student days to 1893. His appreciation
of the Christian college was beautifully set forth at
the close of his sermon on the occasion of the dedica-
tion of our Ford Memorial Chapel on June the seven-
teenth, 1902. The sermon was on the text, *God is
a spirit.' In closing he said :

" 'We who come as comparative strangers to-day,
and are permitted to look around on this beautiful
hilltop dotted with majestic buildings, each with its
especial purpose, say God has blessed this institution.
But it is in this chapel, to be set apart and dedicated
to the worship of Almighty God, that all the glory
and all the work of this hilltop concentrates. To
know God, that is the chief knowledge.

" 'To the students I would say, study in this obser-
vatory if you will, study the stars and moon, but
enter this chapel and give yourself to the God who
guides them. Study in your laboratory the secret
processes of life and geological formation, but rise
in this temple and learn of Him who presides con-
stantly and unseen over all these as well as yet un-
discovered mysteries — the Lord of life. Read the
volumes in your splendid new library by men of fame
now and in times past, but come to this chapel to
find out how He, who is the author of yet unheard-of
volumes written ages ago, still continues to inspire
works of art and literature and humanity. Here
knowledge culminates. Gathered into one great
volume — a rare one — are mysteries and truths well

ON ADMINISTRATIVE BOARDS 113

worth the student's time and effort. Here let him
study, and the whole of nature's book is thrown open
to his inquiring mind. Here shall students from week
to week, from day to day, come into an understanding
of the realities of life, enter into communion with the
best of books, containing the highest possible law,
open to us an entrance to the highest forms of
thought. So may it be during the years that are to
come. God comes here. Can we doubt it for a
moment, that into this community God has come —
that he is here as elsewhere seeking souls that shall com-
mit themselves to his authority and that shall love him ?
He seeketh such to worship in spirit and in truth.

" *I have heard of a great bandmaster of the musical
art who was interested to gather together a great
orchestra which he could take across the ocean to
play. He traveled from city to city in Europe, test-
ing noted performers and listening to first one
musician of fame and then another, rejecting many
and selecting one here and another there, until at
last he had the required number. He brought them
to America to do the work he had desired. As he
sought some singers and players in each of various
cities, so God bends over us, testing us ; true is he ;
pure is he; generous is he; and so dealing with the
successive generations of men, he will gather to him-
self in that great hereafter a company that no man
can number, who shall stand before him in adoring
love and faithful service, singing to him, "Thou hast
redeemed us by thy own precious blood." To him
be the glory and honor forever. May it please God
to make us of that number. May it please God to

114 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

make this temple sacred for his worship in spirit and
in truth forever.' "

Enough has been said to show the Bishop's faith-
ful attention to the educational interests of the Church.
Perhaps a word ought also to be added here setting
forth his fidelity to the interests of Drew Theological
Seminary during the years of his trusteeship. Bishop
Andrews was the intimate friend of Dr. H. A. Buttz,
for whom he cherished a profound regard, and in the
intimate relation between the two much that was of
great influence on the welfare of Drew was wrought
out, though here again it is true, as in so much of
the Bishop's work, that it is hard to put the finger on
the specific good that he did. The good was of that
pervasive and intangible kind of which we have had
so much occasion to speak.

Before we close the chapter we must also men-
tion another special service which Bishop Andrews
rendered the Church. In the year 1896 he was ap-
pointed by the General Conference editor of the
Discipline and was reappointed in 1900 and 1904.
He was given the authority to make verbal changes
without altering the sense of the legislation. The
task was exacting. Not only did the work entail
a vast amount of careful detail but it also threw upon
the editor the responsibility of determining what the
intent of the Conference was when the phraseology
was ambiguous. The work had to be done under
pressure, for the Church is always clamorous for the
quick appearance of the new volume, but by general
consent the edition by Bishop Andrews was practically
flawless.

VI

TRAVELING THROUGH THE
CONNECTION

ACCORDING to the Discipline of the Metho-
dist Episcopal Church, one of the duties
of the Bishop is to travel throughout the
connection. Thus it happens that the list of assign-
ments to Bishops for supervision at the semiannual
meeting of the Board of Bishops is so made that in the
course of every few years each Bishop appears in prac-
tically all parts of the country. In addition to this
official visitation the meetings of the various boards and
calls for various special services give each Bishop a
yearly itinerary which brings him in touch with
every important section of the United States at least.
The traveling of the Bishops might be called almost
incessant.

In a sermon preached in Metropolitan Temple on
May 23, 1897, upon the occasion of the twenty-fifth
anniversary of his election to the episcopacy, Bishop
Andrews took opportunity to refer to this feature
of the work of a Bishop, declaring, "It is not too
much to say that the itinerant general superintendency
and the itinerancy itself stand and fall together." If
this is true, or if the Bishop thought it to be true, it
is important that we try to form some idea of the
service rendered by Bishop Andrews to the Church
in traveling through the connection. Inasmuch as

"5

ii6 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

we have already discussed the work of the Bishop as
a maker of appointments we need only treat this
phase of his work as it may come up incidentally.
We call attention to some more general aspects of
Bishop Andrews's influence upon the wide body of
the Church.

In the old days there was a very frequent cry from
different parts of the Church that "our people have
a great desire to see a Bishop." The Bishop was the
outward and visible sign of the Church's authority,
and his speech was likely to give something of an
impression of the wide extent of the Church's prog-
ress and power. Except in the more remote parts
of the country the desire "to see a Bishop," save in
so far as the Bishop may be worth seeing on his own
account, has greatly diminished. With the main body
of the Church the mere title itself does not awe as it
once did. The country has become too accustomed
to dignitaries to be much moved by them unless there
is something moving in the very personality of the
dignitary himself. The mere fact that a Bishop is
announced to preach before the ordinary Methodist
audience will not of itself draw the attention that
it once did.

We have, however, yet to learn of any instance
in which the appearance of Bishop Andrews in a
neighborhood did not make for the exaltation of
Methodism. There were some marks of superiority
and of impressiveness which were apparent at once.
He was a gentleman throughout, and gentlemanli-
ness passes current at full value everywhere. There
was a certain courtliness as of what we rather indef-

TRAVELING 117

initely name "the old school" which filled out the
ideal of the true Bishop. We all know that, whereas
a certain hale-and-hearty blufYness of demeanor,
a certain willingness to "mix," are in some quarters
looked upon as winning qualities even in church
leadership, the unmistakable marks of gentleman-
liness are the best introduction to the vast majority.
There are thousands upon thousands of Metho-
dists who never think of Bishop Andrews without
recalling his gracious dignity and without remem-
bering the pride they took even in his bearing be-
fore individuals, or social groups, or vast audiences.
In the fall of 1907 one of the most beautiful churches
in Methodism was dedicated in Glens Falls, New
York. The congregation had for years been working
along advanced lines in church endeavor aiming at
qualitative as well as quantitative results. At the
dedication the committee sought for a man who might
by his very bearing impress it upon the community
that the Church stands for fineness of life as a product
of Christian influences. Bishop Andrews was sent
for to preach the dedicatory sermon. The pastor,
the Rev. C. O. Judkins, is authority for the state-
ment that just the impression most helpful came
out of the presence of Bishop Andrews. The charm
of manner and dignity of bearing of the Bishop,
then past eighty years of age, his kindliness and yet
the loftiness of his personal standards, were the
features of dedicatory week. This incident is but
one of hundreds, and is chosen simply because this
was one of the last occasions of the kind which Bishop
Andrews attended.

ii8 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

In this connection, too, we may say a word about
the preaching of the Bishop without anticipating what
may be said in a later chapter. Bishop Andrews had
a manner of preaching which was Hkely to be effect-
ive with a very wide range of hearers. There are
some men of great oratorical abilities who produce,
after all, a very limited impression. The type of
oratory, intense as it is, may be somewhat provincial.
It may be effective in some parts of the country and
the reverse of effective in another. A foremost
Methodist orator, famous for the emotional effects
which his preaching produced in some parts of the
land, once delivered what he considered his most
effective sermon before a New England audience.
The failure was complete. The figures of speech
were altogether too tropical to bear transporting.
Now there is a type of effective preaching which is
good anywhere, and the preaching of Bishop Andrews
was of that type — the simple, straightforward putting
of the truth with the earnestness born of complete
sincerity. This does not rise to the heights which the
more oratorical style sometimes reaches, but, on the
other hand, it is never likely to fall so low. If a
speaker is to have a wide-spread influence through-
out a country as great as the United States, he could
not do better than to cultivate the directness and force
which marked the utterances of Bishop Andrews. If
we are to estimate aright the influence of the Bishop
on the country, we have to give much weight to the
fact that the speech of the Bishop was in that com-
mon coin of good sense and thorough genuineness
which circulates at par everywhere.

TRAVELING 119

Bishop Andrews, however, rendered his service to
the denomination not merely by the impression which
he made upon those whom he met. He was a good ob-
server, and his observations bore fruit in the advice
which he gave at all meetings of the large Church
boards. The characteristics of his observation were
two : ability to see accurately what was before him, and
ability also to keep in mind the whole to which a par-
ticular field had to be related. The Bishop had the
power to be absorbed in his immediate task, and to con-
centrate his attention upon the matters which he was set
to observe to the exclusion of all other matters. As
a representative of the Church he was not given to
much philosophizing over the problems before him.
He was preeminently practical, and came quickly to
what seemed to him the best practical adjustments
under the circumstances. To bring out this fact we
may point to a contrast between the way that a visit
to the missions of India impressed Bishop Andrews
and the way a similar visit impressed Bishop Foster,
Bishop Foster, philosopher that he was, could never
shake from his mind the weight with which a first-
hand knowledge of heathenism burdened him. The
squalor, the abject darkness, the wretched supersti-
tions, impressed Bishop Foster so heavily that he could
not get away from their gloom. Those who stood
close to the Bishop declare that his acquaintance with
heathenism came, in the end, quite seriously to modify
his theological thinking and to open some problems,
especially in eschatology, which a great many people
consider forever closed. Bishop Foster served the
Church by letting the Church of his day see something

I20 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

of the awfulness of the condition of the nations who
sit in darkness. Bishop Andrews was asked if the
trip to India had produced the same impression upon
his mind that it had produced upon the mind of
Bishop Foster. He repHed that it had not, adding,
however, that the reason probably was that he was
so busy with the practical problems before him for
solution that he had not time to think about anything
else. It can be seen at once that the Church needs
both types of men in her Board of General Super-
intendents. Bishop Andrews could throw himself into
the solution of the details of missionary administra-
tion with a complete forgetfulness of everything else.
As a further illustration of this same trait in the
character of Bishop Andrews we may instance the
fact that he was present at Delhi in January of 1877,
when Queen Victoria was proclaimed empress of
India. He preached to a tent full of British officers
on the day before the proclamation, and through the
courtesy of the officers was, on the day of the procla-
mation, given a seat at the ceremonies from which he
could see everything. The scene was a gorgeous one.
If in his ordinary routine of duties he saw heathenism
at its worst, on this day he saw heathenism on its
most dazzling side. The vast plain was filled by the
retinues of the native princes. The princes themselves
were arrayed with jewels in profusion past belief —
wearing "ropes" of pearls and diamonds. The im-
pressiveness of the great troops of dignitaries mounted
on camels, the orderliness of the native soldiery, the
general dramatic effect, made an impression upon the
mind of the Bishop which he never forgot. Yet it

TRAVELING 121

was very seldom that he would speak of this scene.
The writer of these lines once prevailed on him to
tell the story before an audience of Sunday school
children, but the Bishop consented with very great
reluctance. His attitude toward the whole matter
was that it was entirely incidental, and should be kept
in the secondary place. He had no patience with the
thought that tours of episcopal visitation were to be
used as occasions for sight-seeing. We adduce these
incidents simply to show that when Bishop Andrews
was sent upon the work of episcopal visitation he
busied himself with that work.

Before we leave this trip to India we call the reader's
attention to a letter from Bishop Thoburn about the
visit of Bishop Andrews. The visit came about
through the inability of another Bishop to make the
tour, and the motion of Bishop Ames that Bishop
Andrews be sent started Bishop Andrews to India on
rather short notice. He sailed from Philadelphia with
his family in the early summer of 1876 and left them
in Europe during his six months' absence. After hold-
ing the Conferences of Germany, Switzerland,
Sweden, and Norway the Bishop started for India.
Bishop Thoburn writes:

"I first met Bishop Andrews in March, 1864, when
he was a member of the old Oneida Conference, and
principal of Cazenovia Seminary. I had just returned
from India on my first visit to this country, and had
an appointment to give a missionary address at the
above Conference, then in session at Norwich, New
York. Bishop Scott, who presided, asked me to carry
the certificate of transfer of Dr. E. G. Andrews to

122 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

Bishop Simpson, at New York, and when, a few
months later, I attended the General Conference at
Philadelphia, I had the pleasure of renewing my ac-
quaintance with Dr. Andrews, as he was then called,
who was a delegate in attendance at the above body.
In the course of the session, at his request I spent a
Sabbath with his people, preaching morning and even-
ing in the church to which he had been transferred,
and heard much in praise of the new pastor from his
people during my brief stay among them.

"During General Conference of 1872, some of the
missionaries in India were discussing the probabilities
of election to the episcopal office of various candidates.
I ventured to say that among all the prominent men
with whom I was acquainted none of them struck
me as better adapted to such a position than a rising
young man named Andrews, whom I had met during
my visit in the homeland; and it was very gratifying
to me to learn soon afterward that my surmise con-
cerning him had not been amiss. It was quickly
realized as the young Bishop began to move about
among the churches that he was evidently called both
by God and the Church to the distinguished position
in which he was placed.

"In 1876 I was a delegate to the General Confer-
ence which met in Baltimore, and while there was
pleased to learn that Bishop Andrews had been as-
signed to the episcopal charge of India, and would
visit our missions in that country during the ensuing
cold season. As I was expecting to return in the
early autumn, we very naturally arranged to travel
together, and I thus enjoyed the privilege, which I

TRAVELING 123

highly prized, of having him as my traveHng com-
panion on the outward journey, and looked forward
with pleasure to his administration in India after
reaching that field. A little later in the season we
made arrangements to meet at Alexandria. I knew
the hour and place where the railway train which then
carried the mails from Alexandria to Suez would start
on its short journey, and named a date and hour for
us to meet at the place of the steamer's landing. It
seemed like a far cry from Baltimore to Alexandria
in Egypt, but when I went ashore from the steamer
and entered one of the railway cars I heard my name
called, and turning saw the good Bishop standing
near by. I need not say that we had a delightful
voyage together down the historic Red Sea and across
the Indian Ocean to Bombay. The sea was smooth,
the heat very moderate, and the weather ideal, and our
voyage was pleasant in every way. Among other
books we read together Stanley's Lectures on the
Jewish Church, then comparatively new. Day by day
we discussed the bearings of various questions raised
in these lectures, and I need not say that it was worth
very much to me to have not only the writings of a
man so richly endowed for such work, but also to have
a critic or commentator by my side who could help
me with his suggestions, and in some cases his criti-
cisms, and at the same time enrich our conversation
with information from many points of the literary
compass. The Bishop preached twice and made a
very favorable impression on our fellow passengers.

"On arriving at Bombay we found our missionaries
connected with what used to be called the Bombay

124 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

and Bengal Mission awaiting the Bishop's arrival,
and here on the very threshold of his great field the
good Bishop found a task which, if not extremely-
difficult, yet called for great caution and mature
wisdom. Bishop Taylor at that period occupied a
somewhat anomalous position in our Church. He
had the confidence of vast multitudes of people, and
his fame had spread around the globe. He had
preached in many parts of India, had organized
churches, and had been formally appointed superin-
tendent of a large mission field known as the Bombay
and Bengal Mission, but he was not at this time in
India, and it did not seem by any means certain that
he would ever return. He had multitudes of friends
on both sides of the globe, and the course pursued by
Bishop Andrews would certainly be regarded with
careful scrutiny, if not, indeed, with a fear that he
might concede too much or too little to the claims of
the great evangelist. It was evident at a glance that
it would be impossible to follow strictly the lines of
administration usually marked out for such work in
the United States. In this emergency Bishop
Andrews showed great wisdom and exercised much
tact in his administration. He made no abrupt
change of any kind, and yet so arranged matters as
to strengthen our situation, increase the general
confidence of our workers and people, and open the
way for an early and complete union of organization
and effort for our Church throughout not only India
proper but as far as it might extend in Southern Asia.
"While attending our Conferences, examining our
schools, and visiting our churches Bishop Andrews

TRAVELING 125

showed under all circumstances that he fully appreci-
ated the fact that he was in a mission field and not in
the homeland. He made no effort to impose absolute
uniformity upon churches or schools, and was able
to bear in mind all the time that although in one
country he was moving in the midst of different
peoples speaking different languages, and in many
things following ideals of their own. On one point,
however, he was always insistent, and never allowed
us to be forgetful. He feared that the widely scattered
churches which had been organized among the
English-speaking people might so absorb the thought
and energy of our people as to make them forget that
as a people we were in India for the ultimate purpose
of reaching the non-Christian multitudes of that land.
Again and again he would appeal in his sermons and
addresses to his hearers, not to forget *the millions,'
the 'untold millions,' the 'great multitudes' — in «hort,
the mighty host in whose name and for whose sake
we had been sent to India in the first place, and
but for whom we could have no calling now.

"Our Conference met in the city of Bombay soon
after our arrival. A number of our brethren from
North India came down to be present at the session
of this body, and the occasion became one of very
great interest. Bishop Andrews preached on Sunday
with great acceptance not only to the missionaries
but to the people of the city. A public hall had been
secured for this purpose and it was filled to its utmost
capacity. Other meetings were held at the same time,
and the occasion became one of interest to the whole
missionary community. The Conference proved to

126 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

be an occasion which inspired all those who attended
it with new hope and a new zeal. The brethren from
North India who appeared in Bombay for the first
time were made to realize that God was truly giving
us an imperial field in which to build up a great Church
to the Master's name and to the glory of the Most
High. Enough of these good brethren were present
to make all realize that God's plan for us was to
organize a mighty work in India, and on an imperial
scale. Karachee, a great city at the mouth of the
Indus ; Calcutta, at the mouth of the Ganges ; Bombay,
representing West India; and even Rangoon, from
still more distant Burma, were represented here. Per-
haps this was the first time when our leaders generally
realized in a practical way that God was actually lead-
ing us forth into a work which was to assume imperial
dimensions. Bishop Andrews did not encourage a
dream of this kind, nor did he discourage it, but he
manifestly was concerned lest in attempting so much
we might not sufficiently realize what our immediate
duty was. He wished us fully to appreciate the fact
that any work of the kind would carry with it un-
speakable responsibility. He wished us to do solid
work, not to forget our educational responsibilities,
and not to overlook the importance of training some
men with practical qualifications for the work of
leadership.

''Some time later, after the Bishop had visited other
parts of India, I had the pleasure of entertaining him
for about a week in Calcutta. We were at that time
just completing a church for our English congrega-
tion. It was a large building, holding fully twice as

i

TRAVELING 127

large an audience as any other Protestant church in
the city, and its erection seemed at the time to be a haz-
ardous undertaking, especially as we had not enough
money in hand to pay for the site at the time the
building was commenced. We urged the Bishop to
remain with us about ten days longer so as to be
able to dedicate the building, but this he was not able
to do. Many were predicting that the dedication
would prove a failure, that the house would not be
half filled, that everybody would see that it could not
be paid for, and that the enterprise would prove a
mortifying failure. It was with extreme gratitude
that I telegraphed to him, then at the session of the
North India Conference, on the evening of the dedica-
tion : 'Church dedicated ; crowded ; 36,000 rupees sub-
scribed; twenty seekers.' The dear, good man was
so full of gratitude to God that he called on the Con-
ference to suspend work and offer a prayer of thanks-
giving to God for his help in this time of need. Suffice
it to say that no difficulty was encountered in filling
the church or in paying its debt. "

Dr. Julius Soper writes as follows concerning the
visit of Bishop Andrews to Japan :

"Bishop Andrews held the Japan Annual Confer-
ence in the old Tsukiji Church (the first Methodist
Episcopal church ever erected in the city of Tokyo)
in August of 1889. He deeply impressed all the mem-
bers of the Conference, Japanese as well as American.
He was suave and gentlemanly in all his bearing,
and yet firm and decided in his views and convictions.
He gave strict and careful attention to the business
of the Conference and to all the interests of our Mis-

128 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

sion in Japan. The preparation of a constitution for
the new Anglo-Japanese College (established in 1882)
was the great burden of that Conference. He held
several long conferences with the brethren on this
work. His patience and painstaking were marked.
He in a large measure worked out that constitution
— he put his impress upon it. This constitution was
later approved by the Board of Managers of the Mis-
sionary Society. The institution was conducted
harmoniously and successfully under its provisions
for years; and when it was incorporated under the
laws of Japan some three years ago, this constitution
was the basis of the new organization, much of the
phraseology being preserved.

"The most interesting event of that Conference was
Bishop Andrews' sermon on Sunday. The church
being too small for the anticipated gathering, the old
Meiji Kwaido (Meiji, the name of the present imperial
reign, meaning 'enlightened era' ; Kzvaido meaning
'hall'), an assembly hall near by, now no longer used
as such, was rented. There were not far from a
thousand present. It was a great occasion. The ser-
mon was a fine one — well adapted to the people pres-
ent. His text was, 'Whatsoever a man soweth that
shall he also reap.' The treatment was able and
logical, yet simple and direct in delivery. The Rev.
S. Ogata was the interpreter, and right well he per-
formed his duty. It was wonderful how the speaker
and interpreter dove-tailed into each other. Each
one seemed to forget the other. The sentences were
short. Hardly had the interpreter finished his last
word before the Bishop would begin, and vice versa.

TRAVELING 129

Mr. Ogata caught the Bishop's earnest spirit, and
before the end — the whole occupying over an hour —
both were in a holy glow. The impression made was
deep and abiding. I was on the platform. I never
saw in Japan a speaker and his interpreter so much
en rapport.

"The Bishop riveted the attention of the audience
from beginning to end. It was a magnificent sight —
to see nearly a thousand Japanese intent on listening
to the gospel message from so effective and eloquent
a preacher. While all our visiting Bishops have done
well, none have quite equaled Bishop Andrews in the
impression made by that sermon. His general out-
line— so far as I recall, after nearly twenty years —
was about as follows : Every seed has the power of
reproduction, for it contains life; every seed produces
after its kind ; and every seed brings forth a large in-
crease— some thirty, some sixty and some an hundred-
fold. His application was fine: Bad seed produces
as abundantly as good seed. So, while a life with
good seed sown in the heart brings forth abundantly
after its kind, so a life with bad seed sown in the heart
brings forth abundantly after its kind. Concluding,
he said : 'My friends, how is it with your lives and
hearts, and what kind of seed are you sowing day by
day? "He that soweth unto his own flesh shall of the
flesh reap corruption ; but he that soweth to the Spirit
shall of the Spirit reap eternal life." '

"There was another matter in which he was deeply
interested. The General Conference of 1888 had
made provision for a union of Methodism in Japan.
It was not consummated that year, nor the next, nor

I30 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

the next; but Bishop Andrews gave it his sympathy
and offered valuable suggestions as to the form and
content of the proposed new Discipline. He said :
*The proposed new Discipline differs considerably
from that of the Methodist Episcopal Church; but
I do not say that for this reason it may not be suit-
able— perhaps the best — for the work in Japan.
Methodism has grown and prospered under different
forms, and doubtless will for years to come.' He
lived to see the day of the achievement of this union,
the proposed form of which in 1889 gave him much
concern and anxiety. The new Methodist Church of
Japan, organized in 1907, is much more 'episcopal'
than that talked of in those days."

It is not necessary that we should mention in detail
the trip to Mexico in 1882 or the trip to China and
Korea in 1889. Mrs. Andrews accompanied him
both to China and to Mexico, making these journeys
delightful to him. There had been some hardship in
connection with the trip to India owing to the fact
that his son Edward was just recovering from, a
serious attack of typhoid fever at the time Bishop
Andrews left the family in Europe, and the long
absence in India was fraught with anxiety both to
the Bishop and to the family. Of the ordinary in-
conveniences of travel the Bishop made nothing. He
found rising for five o'clock morning trains no burden,
and did not see anything of hardship in reaching a
destination at two o'clock in the morning. For some
years he declined to travel in Pullman cars, in order
to save the expense to the Church. That was, of
course, before the episcopal travel had become as con-

TRAVELING 131

tinuous as to-day, and before the Pullman had come
into such common use as at present. The Church
would rightly protest against a Bishop's declining
to use Pullman cars to-day, but Bishop Andrews
never seemed to feel that his refusal to use them
in those early days meant any great self-denial.
In fact, the Bishop had a gift for traveling and seemed
not to feel annoyances which would worry another
into desperation.

The following letter, written to his wife from Ham-
burg, gives a glimpse of his inner thought during the
long weeks of travel :

'T find myself more and more reluctant to have my
dear daughter so far from us. But I must trust her
with God.

"I hope to hear from you when I reach Copen-
hagen— that you have reached London safely, that
you are comfortably settled, that the children are
making their mother happy by ready, cheerful obe-
dience and considerate effort to please her, that all of
you are in good health, and that you are diligently
using the great privilege of prayer to obtain grace
for every time of need. I was almost startled last
Sunday on perceiving anew (indeed, almost for the
first time) somewhat of the deep meaning of these
words in Hebrews : 'Having, therefore, brethren,
boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
. . . and having an high priest . . . let us
draw near ... in full assurance of faith.* May
we all use this wonderful provision. So prays your
affectionate husband and father,

"E. G. Andrews."

VII

THE STATESMAN

THIS sketch would be incomplete without
some reference to the statesmanlike qual-
ities of Bishop Andrews. The Church has
come to speak of him as a statesman. It may be well
to think of this aspect of his usefulness, even at the
risk of repeating in substance some things said else-
where.

There is no sense in which the government of the
Methodist Episcopal Church can be called monarchical.
The Bishops have little power to originate policies.
They can recommend, but the recommendation is con-
sidered on its merits. The seat of authority is in the
General Conference. Bishop Andrews was very care-
ful to recognize the power of the General Conference
and to keep within the limits prescribed for episcopal
action. He saw that in a democratic Church the
Church itself is the real leader, and he rather allowed
movements to arise within the body of the Church
and then sought to do what he could to give the pro-
gressive impulse proper legal and ecclesiastical con-
nections. In one sense he did not pretend to be a
leader. There are many who seem to think that a
Bishop, with his wide sweep of view over the whole
field, is the very man to inaugurate and set in motion
progressive policies, but Bishop Andrews did not seem
to take this view of leadership. The real leaders in

I3»

THE STATESMAN 133

the Methodist Church are the pastors and laymen,
the men in actual connection with the needs of partic-
ular fields. From the contact of such men with the
actual problems the movements arise which affect
General Conference legislation. The leadership of
the Bishop is that of inspiration and guidance and
supervision rather than of origination. There are
very few instances in which the Bishops run ahead
of the Church.

It has been said of Bishop Andrews that his mind
was not that of a pioneer. This judgment is to be
taken with considerable qualification. When we come
to discuss the relation of the Bishop to modern theolog-
ical movements within the Church we shall see that
he was far and away ahead of most men in the Church,
and those who came close to the Bishop's personal
views knew that on many other questions he had gone
ahead of the thinking of his fellow ministers. _ The
attitude of Bishop Andrews, the attitude of guidance
and counsel, came out of his thought of Church
authority. He did not think of himself as set to orig-
inate policies. He was willing to admit that he could
not get the consent of his mind to step one foot out-
side what he conceived to be the limits marked by the
real authority, namely by the General Conference.

The problems of leadership and statesmanship, then,
for a Methodist Bishop are, in general, those of any
sort of leadership in a democracy. The only way a
Bishop can carry through a statesmanlike plan of
action is to influence votes enough. Of course the
Bishop can show a grasp of far-reaching principles
in Church administration by providing that the right

134 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

preachers get into the right pulpits, but if the pulpit
be of any size this has to be done by persuasion rather
than by autocratic decree. Again, the Bishop has
the right to rearrange districts according to his wis-
dom, but in reality the scope here is not very large.
The leadership of the Bishop is that of persuasion.
If he should fall from a high conception of duty and
try to advance his plans by what the worldly politician
would call patronage he could not get very far. Of
course a Bishop's genuine prejudices may count, and
count mightily, in the situations where the Bishop has
the deciding voice, but in the large movements which
afifect the life of the Church the Church must be con-
vinced. The mere fact that a Bishop desires thus
and so does not count to any great extent apart from
the reasons which may be given for the desire. Even
the recommendations of the Board of Bishops to the
General Conference, made by the board acting to-
gether, carry no weight beyond that of recommen-
dation and have to be considered on their merits
by the various committees. The leadership of the
Bishop is the leadership of mastery of ideas clearly
stated.

Now, while Bishop Andrews respected the authority
of the General Conference he used his influence within
reasonable and respectful bounds to influence General
Conference legislation or, at least, to make his views
known where he thought they would be influential.
Some of these views were far-reaching and very inter-
esting. The Bishop had decided opinions concerning
the wisdom, or, rather, the unwisdom, of the famous
paragraph in the Discipline concerning questionable

THE STATESMAN 135

amusements. In an article in the Methodist Review
for July-August, 1907 (the article is published in
this volume), he openly pronounces against the wis-
dom of legislation on questionable amusements, hold-
ing that the Church can only pronounce definitely on
such matters as are clearly of right and wrong, that
in cases at all doubtful the Church can only state
a general principle and leave the individual free to
make the application for himself. Bishop Andrews
felt that the legislation on questionable amusements
by the Methodist Church had been productive of harm,
not so much by the members whom it had kept out,
or by the inexpediency of putting on the statute
books laws which were not expected to be enforced
and which could in any case with difficulty be en-
forced, but by the radically wrong policy of departing
from New Testament procedure and establishing
minute rules instead of enunciating general principles.
The Bishop's view rested on this broad ground. The
failure of the Church to occupy this theoretical
ground has resulted in some futility in practical attack
upon harmful indulgences. The outcome illustrates
Bishop Andrews' soundness of view as to the con-
fusion resulting from lack of fidelity to correct general
principles. His leadership of the Church was of this
kind — a true understanding of the outcome and im-
plication of general principles.

The first thought of the Bishop for the larger ques-
tions of General Conference activity, then, was that
the activity should base itself on correct general prin-
ciples. His second anxiety was that the Church should
lay stress on the right kind of leadership. We have

136 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

seen in a previous connection that he did not worry
overmuch as to charges of wire-pulHng brought
against the General Conference. He was wiUing
himself to speak to his friends about the excellences
of this or that particular man. He could see as far
ahead as the next as to the possibilities for future
promotion in this or that apparently minor appoint-
ment, and would try to influence such minor appoint-
ments. His anxiety was not so much over the pos-
sibility of political combination as over the kind of
man who often comes to the front in great popular
assemblies. It would, perhaps, have been too much
to expect of one of Bishop Andrews's temperament
that he should have cared greatly for the type of man
who sways assemblies by popular oratory. In any case,
he was always afraid of the Church's rallying around
the mere talker. Without casting any reflection on
the men who had attained high position in the Church
he was apt in his later years to confess himself
alarmed at the type of leader who every now and
again would come forward and who, if not actually
successful in reaching high position, would come near
success. He seemed to feel that the ideal of leader
had changed somewhat since the days of his earlier
manhood, and in moments of discouragement would
express his misgivings as to the future. Over against
this must be put the fact that after men whose elec-
tion he deprecated had been successful in the work
intrusted to them he was the first to acknowledge the
mistake of his own first impression. One type of man
he found it especially hard to adjust himself to — the
man who coolly announces his own fitness for this or

THE STATESMAN 137

that position ; yet the Bishop admitted that more than
one such man had achieved very worthy results after
coming to office.

Because, however, the leadership of the Church
must more and more depend upon intellectual and
spiritual fitness, and because of the progressive decline
of submissiveness to office merely as such, Bishop
Andrews felt more and more the need of reducing to
a minimum the chances of electing inferior and com-
monplace men to prominent position. He felt that
the General Conference ought to provide for election
of Bishops by some board or commission. He used
to say that there were large numbers of men scattered
throughout the Church who would make just as good
Bishops as any who had ever been elected, but that
these stood very little chance of becoming known to a
General Conference, or of making much impression
on a General Conference if they were known.- His
point was that the finer types of spiritual forcefulness
are not always the types of forcefulness which win
in a General Conference. He was distressed at the
fact that some men win election to prominent place
simply because they are the only ones who happen
to be known throughout the Church at large. The
Bishop was old-fashioned enough to believe that some
qualities for high office are not in the nature of the
case likely to prompt their possessor to make much
self-display. Whether the thought of Bishop Andrews
that the Bishops ought to be elected by a board or
commission is itself sound or not, we may be sure
that the observation which prompted the reflection
is true enough. This difficulty, he knew, is inherent

138 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

in democracy and can only be finally eliminated by
improving the general mass of the people.

In 1900, at the General Conference at Chicago,
the Episcopal Address was read by Bishop Andrews.
That address was, of course, the deliverance of the
entire Board of Bishops, but it had been prepared by
Bishop Andrews and can fairly be taken as setting
forth his own thought. It was in this address that
the recommendation was made which led to the re-
moval of the time limit for appointments to pastor-
ates. In matters of this kind, involving just the
problems of Church machinery, the mind of the Bishop
was concerned chiefly with the practical question as
to how to get the best results. The address simply
stated that the Bishops had found the five-year limit
unsatisfactory and that they recommended either a
return to the three-year limit, with provisions for
exceptional cases, or the removal of the limit alto-
gether. The limit was removed. In a case like this
the Bishop never argued from abstract or theoretical
grounds. He waited for the practical consequences
to develop themselves before making suggestions as
to improvement. It cannot be said that the Bishop
had the spirit of a pioneer in Church legislation so
far as details of the machinery were concerned. Any
recommendations which might come from him came
not from abstract reflection but from the pressure of
actual experience. In all such matters he gave him-
self to the working of the system as he found it, and
waited for practical needs to declare themselves. He,
as has been said, was the author of the recommenda-
tion upon which the General Conference had acted

THE STATESMAN 139

in removing the time limit, but with the time Hmit
once removed he did not concern himself much as to
the impression which the new system was making
on the Church. A year or two before he died he was
asked what he found the sentiment of the Church to
be in regard to the working of the itinerant system
without the time limit, and what were the prospects
of a restoration of the limit by the General Conference
of 1908. He replied that he did not know, and added
that he gave himself but little time to consider such
matters, that he was busy with the practical questions
which devolved upon him and that he waited for
defects in the system, if there were any, to report
themselves. The reply was somewhat significant.
Bishop Andrews had nothing of the constitution-
tinker in his nature. In practical spheres, where the
sole question was one of expediency, he did not con-
cern himself with any but practical considerations.
Quite likely, however, the intimate knowledge of all
this class of questions which came out of his constant
and painfully minute attention to the details of admin-
istration made him a more capable suggester of im-
provements, when improvements became necessary,
than were those who discussed simply from the stand-
point of logical implications and imaginary conse-
quences.

There were thus two sides to the Bishop's view of
the Church. In problems having to do with moral
and spiritual interests predominantly the view was
of that broad general nature which seized simple and
fundamental principles to the exclusion of minor
details. On the other hand, when the problem was

I40 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

simply one of improving the machinery his mind
busied itself with the details and allowed the general
considerations to arise out of the pressure of the
practical necessities. In one field especially both these
qualities came clearly to the front. One problem
which lay heavily on the mind of the Bishop was as
to the most efficient way of handling the missionary
enterprises of the Methodist Church, and if the Bishop
is to be looked upon as statesmanlike, the statesman-
ship shows very especially in this field. He knew the
details and he knew the general world-situation.
Even the large geographical features of the missionary
problem appealed to him. There was no man who
could turn more quickly from one field to another
with an intimate understanding of particular and
general needs than could he. Some of his views on
missionary management were quite radical. A man
interested in missionary problems once went to Bishop
Andrews with a proposition that the Churches allow
missionary fields which show no approach of crisis
in their outlook to get along with just enough appro-
priation to hold the organization together and keep
the work going, for the sake of pouring in money
and men to the fields where, as in Japan and China,
everything is seething with the stirrings of change.
To the surprise of the Bishop's interviewer, the Bishop
conceded the correctness of this view, and while he
showed that the withdrawal from any fields already
occupied would involve losses which might not appear
on the surface he went on to declare that the Churches
were missing a great opportunity in the face of pres-
ent-day changes in the Far East in not rushing men

THE STATESMAN 141

from every available quarter to the critical points.
This, of course, seems obviously the part of wis-
dom when thus put, but it very often happens that
missionary authorities meet, hear the needs of
different fields presented, and then vote to leave
the situations relatively just about what they were
before.

Bishop Andrews's view over the field of Methodism
as a whole and his understanding of its problems and
difficulties made impressive his confidence in the future
of the Church. His optimism was not based on trust
in Church machinery but in the spirit of the Church.
He had no doctrine of manifest destiny which was
to carry the Church on to perpetual success, but he
did have a simple trust that the members who might
come into the Church would catch the spirit of Metho-
dism and that they through loyalty to the spiritual
ideals of the Church would continue in the future the
conquests of the past. Of course this faith had its
ups and downs : there were moments now and then
when the Bishop would give way to half-gloomy fore-
bodings, but the forebodings were just those which
one feels when contemplating the possibilities of any
democratic forward movement's getting astray. The
discouragement would be but momentary, and never
reached the stage of scolding or of strained fault-
finding. The contrast between Edward G. Andrews
and some others at this point was instructive. For
example, the Bishop never was especially disturbed
over the change in evangelistic method in situations
where the old-time revival seemed impossible of
success. He saw very clearly that with the increas-

142 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

ing intensity and variety of modem life it is sometimes
simply impossible to get the outsiders within reach
of the older type of special service. Many times the
Bishop went out of his way to encourage and compli-
ment younger ministers whose success showed itself
in accessions at each Communion service. To one such
young minister, discouraged over the failure of the
special-service plan, the Bishop spoke with kindly
praise, pointing out that the ability of this young man
himself to build up his church along all lines by steady
and persistent effort was bringing success of a high
grade. The mere form of the effort did not seem to
be of consequence to the Bishop. He felt that success
would be won increasingly by patience in seeking
men one at a time and by faithfulness in instructing
the children in the home. He believed that the suc-
cess of Methodism depended on evangelism, but he
knew that the form of evangelism effective at one
time in the history of the Church could not nec-
essarily be taken as the standard method for all
time.

There were many symptoms of the evil in the heart
of much of modern society which bore heavily upon
the mind of Bishop Andrews. His desire for the
Church was that something should come out of her
life that would dissipate the unbelief of society. The
apparent lack of confidence in noble ideals which pre-
vails in much modern life distressed the Bishop very
much. As an illustration of his method of thinking
along this line we may say that the most alarming
single fact which he saw in modern life was the spread
of suicide. Suicide seemed to Bishop Andrews such

THE STATESMAN 143

a horrible indication of the departure of that faith in
good which holds minds in sanity that he could not
refrain from speaking of it as an appalling indication
of lack of spiritual vitality in our modern life.

A fact about Methodism which seemed to be much
in the mind of Bishop Andrews in the closing years,
which did not especially discourage him and yet which
presented a problem which he felt must be reckoned
with, was the failure of Methodism to produce or to
hold rich men of the highest rank of wealth. This
does not mean that there was the slightest subserviency
to wealth on the Bishop's part, but it shows how
clearly he understood the needs of the day. He saw
immense philanthropic schemes to which the Church
might give herself if she only had the money, but the
money would be needed in immense quantities. The
Bishop had considerable experience in trying to raise
money for large projects, and while he had unbounded
faith in the Church as a whole he felt that the lack
of any considerable number of men of great wealth
in our Church was a hindrance which would have to
be taken account of. The Bishop felt that the Church
had a message to men of wealth and that the rich men
who had come of Methodist parentage owed a re-
sponsibility to the Church for the advance of the
Church's enterprises. The falling away of some rich
men from the Church he recognized, the inclination
of the children of some rich men away from the
Church he deplored. He saw that the Church must
recognize the situation and meet it by a larger giving
on the part of those in ordinary circumstances. We
do not mean that the Bishop was at all pessimistic

144 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

over the situation. He had, however, faced the
problem and he felt that others should likewise face
it. He knew the need of very large sums of money
for Christian work and did not see that these were
to be found in the purses of any small number of
persons.

VIII
THE THEOLOGICAL COUNSELOR

WE come now to think of the most dis-
tinctive influence which Bishop Andrews
exerted on the Church in the later years
of his Hfe — his work as counselor and guide during
the troublous years when the Churches of this land
were adjusting themselves to the changing views of
the Scriptures which have been a foremost part of
theological thinking in the last twenty-five years. In
the last five or ten years of his life Bishop Andrews
was regarded as possibly the most progressive man
in theological thinking on the Board of Bishops. It
is well that we try to come to some understanding of
this part of his work.

In his earlier years Bishop Andrews had learned
two lessons which he never forgot. One came through
the reading of the works of William Ellery Channing.
The reading of the works of Channing and contact
with their lofty spirituality taught Edward G.
Andrews this lesson from which he never escaped,
namely, that the man whose views were diametrically
opposed to his might he a man of loftiest Christian
character. Most sincere men learn this lesson before
they get through life, but Bishop Andrews had the
advantage of having mastered the lesson early. The
second lesson was learned from the reading of
Neander's Church History. Very early in the

H5

146 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

Bishop's ministry he came upon a copy of Neander's
History of the Church. Though one could hardly
claim to-day that the work of Neander is to
be placed in the first rank, yet the reading of the book
made upon the mind of the young Andrews the im-
pression of the divineness of the forces which are too
often thought of as merely natural. He took from
Neander the realization of the part which the natural
movement according to law plays in the unfolding of
a divine plan. Of course Neander in his day could
not have had the wealth of material for setting this
conception forth which the modern historian possesses,
but the youthful pastor in central New York caught
the idea clearly enough to see its implications.

These two conceptions were as seed sown in good
ground. There was a long period, however, in which
the Bishop had no great opportunity to think closely
about theological matters, and, indeed, there was no
pressing theological problem up for a long time. In
the eighties, when the first rumors of the results of
latter-day biblical study began to reach the Bishop,
he was very much disturbed by them. When one of
his brethren on the Episcopal Board began to speak
in charitable tones of the new movement and to point
out that great good might be expected from it in the
end, Bishop Andrews was as greatly agitated in mind
as it was possible for a man of his equable tempera-
ment to be. The two lessons which he had learned
in early life stood him in good stead through this
period, however, and he kept his mind open for what-
ever light might come.

According to the Bishop's own statement, the turn-

THEOLOGICAL COUNSELOR 147

ing of a new corner in his thinking came with the
pubhcation of Professor WiUiam Newton Clarke's
OutHne of Christian Theology, in 1898. Bishop
Andrews had had some acquaintance with Professor
Clarke in early days at Cazenovia, and the personal
interest in the Professor led to the reading of the
book. Perhaps a knowledge of the character of the
author predisposed the Bishop to a favorable attitude.
In any case the book, by the symmetry of its method
and the charm of its spirit, influenced the Bishop pro-
foundly. The following are extracts from corre-
spondence which passed between the Bishop and Pro-
fessor Clarke:

"New York, March 2:^, 1899.

"Professor W. N. Clarke.

"My dear Brother: Though holding through
many past years a very pleasant remembrance of
yourself and of your most estimable father, mother,
and sister, I had in my many movements through the
country lost sight of yourself and your work.

"But last summer, being in the study of a young
minister, I found that he had read with great pleasure
and profit An Outline of Christian Theology, by
Professor W. N. Clarke, of Colgate University.
. . . I bought the volume and during the summer
vacation read and reread it with great interest and
with thankfulness for this new and most admirable
setting of Christian truth.

"My wife also has read it with equal pleasure and
also my daughter, Mrs. Ingraham. . . . And
I have often recommended it to ministers who seemed

148 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

to be in a posture and of a quality of mind likely to
be profited by it.

"I may be permitted to say, without fear of sus-
picion that I attempt flattery, that a nobler combina-
tion of freedom and conservatism, of clear intellectual
processes with the sweetness and fervor of devoutness,
of strength of material with grace of form, has rarely
or never come to my library.

"I am greatly pleased to think that I knew in
his early years the author, and among other things
to note in this case how the godly home of a pastor
has yielded such admirable fruit.

"Sincerely yours,

"Edward G. Andrews."

Professor Clarke replied in a letter largely personal,
from which the following excerpts are made :

"Hamilton, N. Y., March 30, 1899.

"My dear Bishop Andrews: Your letter was
equally surprising and delightful. That you should
enjoy and approve my book could not fail to gladden
me, and that you should take time to tell me of it,
and welcome me so warmly to your circle of thought
and friendly feeling — how can I fail to thank you
lovingly for this ? You have always been a fixed point
for admiration and approval in my mind, and I have
thought with constant pleasure of your strong and
honorable service in a laborious office for the good
of the Church. . . .

"I have been preaching most of my life, and in
1890, most unexpectedly, I found myself teaching
theology — the last thing I had ever looked forward

THEOLOGICAL COUNSELOR 149

to doing. But it has been a perpetual delight and an
unspeakable privilege. The book is the outcome. I
printed it privately in 1894 and in 1898 I revised it
and published it, as you know. It seems to be doing
good, for I am constantly hearing of it in unexpected
quarters as welcome. Bishop Vincent became inter-
ested in it in the earlier form and commended it here
and there. ... I seem to have spoken somehow
to the unuttered thoughts of many, and that is the
surest way to get a hearing. . . .
"Sincerely yours,

"William N. Clarke."

The charm 01 Dr. Clarke's book is in the freshness
with which the old, old truths are seized and in the
conviction of reality with which they are stated —
together with the modernness of the outlook upon
biblical and scientific and philosophical problems.
The originality of the treatment and the frankness
of the changed line of approach toward some ques-
tions made the book seem quite radical to those who
thought there ought to be only one standard and con-
ventional putting of theological truth. Professor
Clarke's distinction between the life of Christian
experience and the interpretation of Christian expe-
rience in theology, familiar as this has become in the
past few years, struck Bishop Andrews with great
force. It helped him to see the dividing line between
what is essential and what incidental and secondary.

From 1898 on to the end of his life Bishop Andrews
read theology with new avidity. His mind was not
of the speculative type. In fact, he never could quite

I50 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

understand the part of the more purely speculative
thinkers, and he turned aside from metaphysics. For
vital puttings of theological truth, apart from its
more speculative phases, he had, hoAvever, the keenest
attention. He was impressed by the suggestiveness
of books like Dr. Henry Churchill King's Reconstruc-
tion in Theology and by the fine religious spirit of
Dr. Henry C. Sheldon's Systematic Theology. Out
of all his reading came an openness of mind unu-
sual in a Church official busy as was Bishop Andrews,
and astonishing in one whose theological reflection
had taken a new start after he had reached the age
of three score years and ten. In the light of Bishop
Andrews's example it is no longer possible to say
that Church officials must necessarily be inflexible in
their conservatism, or that theological leadership can-
not be looked for in the older men.

Bishop Andrews was very anxious that in all theo-
logical discussion within the Church the emphasis
should be right. He did not desire that theological
discussion should so emphasize minor points as to
make these points more than minor. For himself he
held fast to certain conceptions as altogether central.
We cannot do better than quote his own words in the
Episcopal Address of 1900 :

"Inasmuch as the permanence and growth of the
Christian Church, and of any part of it, are insep-
arable from fidelity to the truth as it. is in Jesus, we
rejoice to report our belief that the theological con-
victions and teachings of our Church are, in the main,
unchanged, that through its entire extent, at home
and abroad, the essential Christian verities, as re-

THEOLOGICAL COUNSELOR 151

ceived from our fathers and by which we have hitherto
ministered successfully to the kingdom of God, are
firmly held and positively proclaimed. We believe
in one living and personal God, the Father Almighty,
who in perfect wisdom, holiness, and love pervades,
sustains, and rules the worlds which he has made.
We believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son our Lord,
in whom dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily,
who was in glory with the Father before all worlds,
who became flesh and dwelt among us the brightness
of the glory of God and the express image of his
person, who died for sins, the just for the unjust, that
he might bring man to God, who rose from the dead,
who ascended on high, having received all power in
heaven and earth for the completion, by grace and
judgment, of the kingdom of God. We believe in
the Holy Ghost, very and eternal God, the Lord and
Giver of life, by whose operation on men dead in tres-
passes and sins they are quickened to repentance, faith
and loving obedience, are made aware of their son-
ship with God, and are empowered to rise into the full
stature of men in Christ Jesus. We believe in the
impartial love of God to the whole human family, so
that none are excluded from the benefits thereof ex-
cept as they exclude themselves by willful unbelief
and sin. We believe that faith in Christ, the self-
surrender of the soul to his government and grace, is
the one condition upon which man is reconciled to God,
is born again, becomes partaker of the divine nature,
and attains sanctification through the Spirit. We
accept the moral law confirmed and perfected by the
divine Teacher, and set forth authoritatively in the

152 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

Holy Scripture; and we believe in eternal conse-
quences of good and evil, inherent in the constitution
of the human soul, and declared with utmost solemnity
by him, the final Judge of human life. These central
truths of the Christian system we think were never
more positively held and declared among us than they
now are. They were so clearly apprehended and
stated by our founders that the progress of theological
study has not forced us to hold them either by excision
from, or by additions to, our former creed. They are
part of our inalienable inheritance. By this sign we
conquer.

''Beyond the limits of these central and constitutive
verities of the Christian faith, Methodism has never
insisted on uniformity of thought or statement. It
has allowed freedom of reverent inquiry. It adopts
Mr. Wesley's words : 'As to all opinions which do not
strike at the root of Christianity, we think and let
think.' In its Christocentric theology and in its spirit
of aggressive evangelism it has found sufficient safe-
guards against individual eccentricities of thought.
On the one hand, the reverent spirit of the Methodist
theology has nothing in common with the destructive
spirit of much recent criticism. To overthrow, and
not to conserve, the faith once delivered to the saints
seems to be the tendency, if not the aim, of such crit-
icism. But on the other hand, serious, conservative,
patient, and practical study of the many undeter-
mined questions of theology, questions which chiefly
concern, not the facts, but the methods of divine reve-
lation and government — this study the Church allows
and approves. It believes in scholarship honestly

THEOLOGICAL COUNSELOR 153

directed to learn more than has hitherto been known
of the divine word and the divine works. It beheves
that more hght is yet to break forth from both. It
contemns sciohsm, self-sufficiency, love of novelty,
the iconoclastic spirit in biblical studies ; it welcomes
truth, even new truths, if duly tested, confinned, and
found serviceable to the life of the soul."

It will be seen from this that the Bishop desired
that the ministers should not lose their sense of the
relative importance of different phases of the truth.
He sometimes felt that the very discussion of some
of the more minute points of theological debate was
of doubtful value in that it tended to raise these
points to an importance which they did not intrinsic-
ally possess. He also desired that the theological
debate should be free from bitterness of spirit, and
still again he desired that the debaters should as far
as possible make themselves understood. This last
point, he was sure, was of much greater importance
than many debaters imagined. Bishop Andrews was
aware of the fact that many a man needlessly arouses
criticism and brings his cause into suspicion because
of his own failure to make himself understood. The
Bishop saw that in some cases this misunderstanding
is inevitable because of the inherent difficulty of the
subject-matter, or because of the temperamental dif-
ferences of the disputants. In other cases, however,
he saw that if the writers had been at the pains to labor
honestly and earnestly to make themselves understood
much difficulty might have been avoided. The Bishop
was not greatly impressed with that type of boldness
which rushes into speech or print with imperfectly

154 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

thought-out conclusions. He insisted that if we are
to make high appeals to honesty in such situations we
must first do all that we can to make ourselves under-
stood. The type of honesty which simply blurts out
a half-thought regardless of the possible misunder-
standing did not impress the Bishop as overvaluable.

In his own utterances Bishop Andrews was care-
ful to observe all the official proprieties. He knew
that there is a valid distinction to be drawn between
the utterances of a minister as an individual and the
utterances of the same individual as an official, as a
Bishop of the Church for example; and he felt that
he must not so overdo the emphasis on his own views
as to allow men to get the impression that he was try-
ing to put upon them the sanction of official authority.
It a letter to a friend he wrote :

"The individual thinker has his right of way
among us. Let him utter his views freely and without
censure. It is often, doubtless, a matter of courage
for him to do this ; but he is likely to strengthen him-
self by emphasizing the ultimate value and outcome
of truth, whatever may be the present disasters in-
cident to the breaking up of hereditary faiths. But
he ought not to forget that these disasters are real,
numerous, and far-reaching; and he must not think
of the pastor and the religious publisher, who are set
over souls now living, as if they were cowardly if they
hesitate to accept and exploit new views of the
Bible and its contents. . . .

"Questions are opened with me which I formerly
thought closed. In common with most men who
may, perhaps, by courtesy be called thoughtful, there

THEOLOGICAL COUNSELOR 155

is going on with me a process of reconstruction on
many subjects in theology. But for you and for me
the foundation standeth sure. God is in Christ recon-
ciHng the world to himself. . . ."

The view of official duty as expressed above did
not mean that he had any sympathy with those large
silences in the Church press as to modern biblical and
theological conceptions which sometimes lead the
casual reader to assume that the Church paper is the
last to take notice of world-wide movements in theol-
ogy. He favored the opening of the columns of the
Church press for ample discussion of biblical criticism
especially. And he had no sort of sympathy with the
wholesale onslaught upon Methodist theological
schools which had a run of popularity with a certain
class in the years from 1900 to 1906. When he
learned that one such reckless assailant was to appear
before a meeting of preachers with a promise of
"making the fur fly," he advised a man of the opposite
point of view to attend the meeting and make reply
if opportunity should be given. "Moreover," he said,
"be sure to sit on the front seat, where the presiding
officer will not fail to see you when you rise to speak."
The years from about 1895 on for a decade were the
years when the Methodist Church was coming to its
adjustment on the matter of biblical criticism. In
those years many positions of the newer school were
seen to be helpful, others worthless, and others harm-
ful, but the Church, apart from individuals here and
there, is learning to deal with the problem by the
right methods — allowing the scholar his part, the
saint his part, and the great mass of sensible, earnest

156 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

believers their part. In the years of approach to this
outcome the example of Bishop Andrews, holding
fast to what he conceived to be good and reaching
forth to what he felt might be better, was of great
service to the Church. Mistakes on both sides would
have been fewer if the Bishop's example could have
been more closely followed. The temptation in all
such conflicts is to forget that the weapons of intel-
lectual and religious warfare are not carnal, and the
Methodist Church, in company with other Protestant
bodies, suffered from this oversight in both camps of
debaters.

We cannot do justice to this phase of the Influence
of Bishop Andrews if we do not mention his relation
to the case of Professor Mitchell, of Boston University
School of Theology. Professor Mitchell was at the
head of the department of Old Testament exegesis, and
for nearly twenty years had been teaching the views for
which in 1900 he was called to account. The charter
of the Boston School gave the Bishops the right of
confirmation of professors and in 1900 Professor
Mitchell was reelected for another customary term,
namely, five years. There was protest against his
confirmation, but the Bishops finally confirmed him.
In 1905 the protest was renewed and through a change
in the General Conference law concerning the inves-
tigation of charges against professors the Bishops
declared themselves unable to vote on the question of
Professor Mitchell's confirmation. The protest against
Professor Mitchell continued, and at the meeting of
Professor Mitchell's Conference in 1906 charges of
heresy were filed against the Professor. The charges

THEOLOGICAL COUNSELOR 157

were found to be In improper legal form and were
thrown out.

Bishop Andrews had voted for the confirmation of
Professor Mitchell in 1900, He was not on the
effective list in 1905 and so had no vote. When the
charges were brought against Professor Mitchell for
a Church trial he placed in the hands of the counsel
of Professor Mitchell a paper prepared by himself on
the main question as to whether the World Before
Abraham, the book for which Professor Mitchell had
been called in question, was sufficiently at variance
with Methodist belief to warrant the condemnation
of its author for heresy. We publish the paper as
showing the character of the Bishop's mind and the
nature of his thinking during the discussion of higher
criticism in the Methodist Church. Taken with the
paper delivered at Garrett Biblical Institute this paper
is worthy of being preserved as a model of judicial
method, no matter what opinion we may hold as to
its conclusions. This paper was not prepared in con-
nection with the charges before the Central New York
Conference but was given for what it might be worth
on the main point. The paper was prepared in con-
nection with certain charges submitted to Bishop
Andrews in 1905.

THE CASE OF PROFESSOR MITCHELL

Discriminating between the allegations of fact made in
the paper before us against Professor Mitchell and the ac-
companying theological inferences drawn by the complain-
ants, we find the allegations to be these four :

I. Professor Mitchell teaches that Moses is not the author

158 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

of the Pentateuch as we now have it, it being a composite
work, the growth of the entire period from Moses to Ezra.

2. Professor Mitchell declares his opinion that Jesus in
his humiliation was not omniscient.

3. Professor Mitchell teaches that the first eleven chapters
of Genesis are not strictly historical, this statement applying
to the account of the creation, of the temptation and fall of
Adam and Eve, of the succession and length of life of the
antediluvians, of the universality of the deluge, and of some
of the genealogical tables from Adam to Noah.

4. Professor Mitchell, in denying the Mosaic authorship
of the Pentateuch, denies that God gave to Moses some of
the laws and statutes as recorded in the Pentateuch, and that
he gave them at the times and under the circumstances
under which these laws and statutes are said to have been
given.

It will be observed that Professor Mitchell is not accused
in the paper referred to of teachings contrary to our stand-
ards of doctrine, as to the central and vital articles of our
creed, namely, the being, character, and government of God;
the deity of Christ (except by implications hereinafter to be
examined); the personality and deity of the Holy Spirit;
man's sinfulness and lost condition ; atonement by the death
of Christ ; regeneration, the witness of adoption, and sanctifi-
cation by the Holy Spirit; faith as the one condition of
salvation; the church and the sacraments; and future and
final rewards and punishments. He is supposed to be ready
to affirm in the usual certificate his conformity to the doc-
trines and polity of the Methodist Episcopal Church.

The questions seem to be these two:

1. Are the allegations of fact sustained by adequate
evidences?

2. If sustained, in whole or in part, do they sustain the
charge of "misteaching" ? of teaching contrary to our doc-
trinal standards? Let us examine the allegations and evi-
dence in the order given above.

I. Does Professor Mitchell teach that Moses is not the
author of the Pentateuch, as we now have it? Unquestion-

THEOLOGICAL COUNSELOR 159

ably. The W. B. A. repeatedly and unmistakably avows this
opinion. Let, however, a more particular statement be made.

1. In W. B. A. Professor Mitchell distinctly recognizes
Moses as the "inspired" founder, lawgiver, and hero of Israel.

2. He distinctly recognizes some portions of the Pen-
tateuch as having, by divine command, been committed to
writing by Moses.

3. In W. B. A. he expresses no doubt that other portions
of the Pentateuch, in which it is recorded that "the Lord
spake unto Moses," and in which are narrated passages of
the early history of Israel, under the leadership of Moses,
are true records of fact, whensoever and by whomsoever they
were first committed to writing.

4. The opinion that Moses did not write the Pentateuch
as we now have it, though contrary to the opinion prevalent
in our Church, cannot be shown to be contrary to our stand-
ards of doctrine, namely, the articles of religion, the cate-
chism, and (so far as the present writer knows) Mr. Wes-
ley's first fifty-three sermons.

5. Nor is this opinion incompatible, as very many personal
instances show, with a genuine and hearty faith in the divine
origin, authority, and truth of the Christian religion accord-
ing to the evangelical interpretation thereof.

6. The opinion of the Jewish Church contemporaneous
with Christ is not conclusive on the question before us;
nor even that of the sacred writers except upon the theory
that inspiration made all of them infallible not in theological
truth only but also in all matters, historical, genealogical,
scientific, to which they may allude — a theory which seems
to be less largely and less firmly held than in years gone by.

7. The question of the sources, authorship, and authority
of the Pentateuch is of very great moment to Christian
thought and life. It should therefore be dealt with reverently,
cautiously, even with great solicitude, lest vital truths in
any way be obscured. But the question is under most critical
study by many men, some of them doubtless indifferent or
hostile to revealed religion, but many of them devout, rev-
erent, believing, as well as scholarly. It is an open question.

i6o EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

But it will be finally settled in the forum of Christian
reason.

Meantime the advice of Neander to the Prussian govern-
ment that the Life of Christ, by Strauss the skeptic, should
not be put under the ban of authority, but should be met only
by argument, should have place with us. The truth is mighty
and will prevail.

II. Does Professor Mitchell teach that, in his opinion,
Jesus in his humiliation was not omniscient? (See W. B. A.,
pp. i6, 17.) Unquestionably. Yet he declares that he leaves
his pupils free to choose between this and another theory in
explaining the allusions of Christ to the Mosaic authorship
of the Pentateuch as found in the New Testament. In the
bill of charges, by many and emphatic statements, it is set
forth that the holding of this opinion as to the possible
limitation of knowledge in the humiliation of Jesus is tanta-
mount to a denial of his deity and of all doctrines framed
thereon. Must this position be admitted? It is a sufficient
answer to this question to cite the names, and in some cases
the words, of men of unquestioned orthodoxy, of piety and
learning, who have held or treated with deference the
opinion which Professor Mitchell avows. (In its full and
dogmatic form this theory is called the Kenosis, "the empty-
ing himself" of Phil. 2. I have not noticed that Professor
Mitchell has avowed any general theory of the Kenosis; he
seems only to have spoken of particular cases of limitation
of knowledge in Jesus. While, therefore, the theory of
the Kenosis may include his view, he cannot be held re-
sponsible for the theory as a whole.)

Citations :

I. Dr. Whedon in Methodist Review, 1861, p. 148
(abridged) : "A highly important contribution to the history
of modern theology has been furnished by J. Bodenmeyer's
Doctrine of the Kenosis, a doctrine which has gained a
number of adherents among the Lutheran theologians of
Germany. According to it, the Logos at his incarnation
voluntarily divested himself of his divine self-consciousness
in order to develop himself in purely human form. On ac-

THEOLOGICAL COUNSELOR i6i

count of the importance which is attributed to it by a large
number of theologians it well deserved to be made the sub-
ject of a special thorough work."

2. Dr. Whedon in Methodist Review, 1870, p. 291
(abridged) : "The first article (in Bibliotheca Sacra) by
Professor Reubelt is learned and able. In favor of what is
called the Kenosis. . . . We are not disposed to dog-
matize on such a subject. We must speak with respect of
a dogma held by Dorner, Pressense, and by Dr. Nast." Dr.
Whedon then proceeded to controvert the dogma.

3. In Methodist Review for 1897, pp. 229-246, Dr. M. J.
Cramer argues at length the limitation of knowledge in
Jesus during his humiliation; and in Methodist Review for
1904, pp. 234-236, G. P. Eckman, D.D., pastor of Saint
Paul's Church, New York, affirms with copious argument
the same position.

4. McClintock and Strong's Encyclopedia article Kenosis
admits the difficulty, in its own language, of adjusting "the
God to the man," argues against the Kenosis, but adds : "The
theory of a somewhat double consciousness, if we may so
express it, or, at least, an occasional (and in early life a
prolonged) withdrawal of the divine cognitions from the
human intellect . . . seems to be required in order to meet
the varying aspects under which the compound life of Jesus
presents itself in the Gospels."

5. Dr. William Nast, founder of German Methodism,
cited by Dr. Mitchell from Vol. I of Commentary on Mark
13. 32: "To say that Christ as a man knoweth it not, but as
God knoweth it, is self-contradictory. To know, and at the
same time not to know, a thing, would destroy the unity of
the personality of the God-man. ... It was proper for him
who became like unto us to be our pattern in his walking by
faith, that, in the state of his humiliation, he should not know
the completion of the seon."

6. Three unquestionably orthodox commentaries in my
library, in commenting on Luke 2. 40-52, Matt. 24. 36, and
Mark 13. 32, distinctly and unequivocally affirm the real
ignorance of Jesus in his childhood, and when he said in

i62 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

Matthew and Mark, "Neither the Son." See (i) Alford,
Vol, I, pp. 217-227; (2) Stier, Words of Jesus, Vol. I, p.
472; (3) Lange, Commentary on Mark, pp. 132-136.

7. Neander, Life of Christ, p. 368, on Mark 13. 32: "To
know the time presupposes a knowledge of the hidden causes
of events, of the actions and reactions of free agents — a
prescience which none but the Father could have — unless we
suppose, xvhat Christ cxpressely denies, that he had received
it by a special divine revelation."

8. Dr. Luke H. Wiseman, former President of the British
Wesleyan Conference, is cited in Homiletical Encyclopedia,
p. 148, as follows: "In his youth, at least, Jesus grew in
wisdom. His attainment of knowledge at that period of his
life was progressive. Nor can we reasonably suppose it was
otherwise afterward. He learned obedience by the things
which he suffered."

9. Canon Gore, Dissertations, p. 94: "We are forced to
assent that, within the sphere and period of his incarnate
and mortal life, he did — and, as it would appear, did habitu-
ally— . . . . cease from the exercise of those divine functions
and powers, including the divine omniscience, which would
have been incompatible with a truly human experience."

10. Godet, Commentary on John i. 14, p. 362: "Jesus no
longer possesses on earth the attributes which constitute the
divine state. Omniscience he has not, for he asks questions,
and himself declares his ignorance on one point (Mark 13.
32)."

11. Gore, Dissertations, pp. 190, 191, cites from Dr. Fair-
bairn, a passage too long to be here quoted, which asserts
most unequivocally the same doctrine, in substance, which
Godet asserts. On p. 192 Gore also cites Bishop Martensen,
the distinguished Danish theologian, as holding a Kenotic
theory.

12. Canon Gore also cites from eminent English the-
ologians, passages which, without careful definition, admit
the possible limitation of knowledge in Jesus.

13. Bruce, Humiliation of Christ, p. 392, cites from
Delitzsch : "The incarnate Logos is not in possession of the

THEOLOGICAL COUNSELOR 163

eternal ^"^a, for he desires to resign it (John 17. 5). He
is not omniscient, for he knows not, as he himself says, the
day and hour of the end (Mark 13. 32). He is not omni-
present," etc.

14. Henry van Dyke, D.D., Ex-Moderator of the Pres-
byterian General Assembly, in Gospel for an Age of Doubt,
argues at length and urgently for the doctrines of Kenosis.

15. He cites p. 155 from Howard Crosby, a full and strong
passage which affirms the limitation of knowledge in Jesus
from Bethlehem to Calvary.

16. In Dr. Terry's Moses and the Prophets, Appendix,
pp. 181-194, Dr. C. J. Little, of Garrett Biblical Institute,
Dr. Samuel Plantz, of Lawrence University, and Dr. B. P.
Raymond, of Wesleyan University, distinctly avow their
belief that the knowledge of Jesus in his humiliation was
limited.

17. To these add opinion of Robert W. Dale, of Birming-
ham, England.

In closing these statements, attention is called to the fact
that no German theologian but Delitzsch has been either
quoted or referred to.

These citations of opinion are made with the single pur-
pose of showing that men in high reputation for learning,
piety, and orthodoxy have either held the opinion that the
knowledge of Jesus during his humiliation was limited, or
have held that such an opinion was not incompatible with
faith in the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. Great is the
mystery of the incarnation. It is a depth in which human
thought is lost. Whether we adopt or reject the theory of
limitation, we are equally unable to explain how the "Lord
became flesh." And in view of the citations made, it cannot
be thought a fatal error to hold and to teach this theory if
it be done reverently and undogmatically.

III. Does Professor Mitchell teach that the first eleven
chapters of Genesis are not to be considered strictly his-
torical? Unquestionably. See W. B. A. passim. He does
not seem to base this opinion on the doctrine of evolution,
which the W. B. A. nowhere treats or even, so far as we

i64 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

have noted, alludes to, nor on any theory of anti-supernatural-
sm. He rather finds support for it chiefly in (i) the varia-
tions found in the two accounts of the creation and also of
the flood; (2) in the failure thus far to reconcile Genesis
and geology, (3) in the peculiar incidents found in the
accounts of the temptation and fall, and in the resemblance
between it and the myths common with many ancient people,
and (4) in the incredible length of life assigned to individual
antediluvians. I suppose all thinking men have struggled
to some degree with the difficulties existing in these eleven
chapters. We have given up the literal days, and have sub-
stituted for them indefinite seons ; we have questioned whether
the serpent or, on the other hand, some infernal spirit in the
guise of a serpent, or of a monkey as Adam Clarke supposes,
was the tempter; we have wondered whether the history of
long-lived individual antediluvians ought not to be considered
as rather the history of tribes or dynasties, or whether the
so-called years of their lives were meant for smaller sub-
divisions of time; and we no longer think of the Noachian
Deluge as being universal, though it is said to have covered
the "earth" and "all the high mountains under the heavens."

But in judging Professor Mitchell's teaching on this head
it is sufficient to consider that in his opinion on the non-
historicity of the eleven chapters he represents the opinions
of by far the larger portion of the leading biblical scholars
of this time. It would be difficult to name any large number
of eminent and orthodox scholars, familiar with modern
critical studies, whose views are not adverse to the strict
historicity of the chapters. They find, as does Professor
Mitchell, great religious truths concerning God, man, sin,
judgment, preparation for redemption, put before us in forms
more or less historical — but not to be treated as unerring
history, I cite the names of some of these leaders of the-
ological thought.

[Here follows a long list of scholars.]

IV. In denying the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch,
does Professor Mitchell deny the statement of the Pentateuch
that God often gave laws to Moses, and that he did this at

THEOLOGICAL COUNSELOR 165

the times and under the circumstances set forth in the narra-
tion? The answer should be Nay and Yea. He does not
deny — and he does.

1. Professor Mitchell does not deny, but holds, that Moses
received from God laws and statutes for Israel ; that Moses
wrote various parts of the Pentateuch, including these and
certain historic matters; and he implies the belief that other
laws and statutes were received by Moses from God, which
were, perhaps, written down at a later date and by other
hands.

2. But Professor Mitchell holds that some parts of the
Pentateuch said to come from God through Moses were
framed and incorporated with preceding divine laws by men
much later than Moses.

How this supposed fact can be reconciled with a true
ethical sense in those who thus in the name of Moses added
to the laws of Moses, how the Jewish people came to accept
the additions as from Moses, and how far and in what man-
ner the Christ of the Pentateuch and of the Old Testament
is affected thereby, are among the difficult problems of
Mosaic scholarship. But here, as in the matters foregoing.
Professor Mitchell is in harmony with very many eminent
and orthodox scholars.

Undoubtedly there is unrest in the Church resulting from
the higher criticism. Probably the faith of some in the
Christian system is weakened thereby. In some cases the
pulpit probably utters the Christian verities in a subdued
tone. We lament it. We regret the simple and unquestion-
ing confidence of former years in the literal truth of every
word of the Scripture. But the remedy is not in suppressing
inquiry. That must, that will go on. It makes this a time
of transition, often of painful transition. But the aim, the
spirit, the thoroughness of the inquiry, will bring us good.
Never was Christian scholarship more devout, more single
of eye, more positive in evangelical consistency, than now.
Patience, prayer. Christian work, will make the Church safe.

IX

THE PREACHER

WHEN Phillips Brooks was elected Bishop
of the diocese of Massachusetts an edito-
rial comment in the Christian Advocate
expressed the probability that the sermons of the new
Bishop would in their quality fall below the average
which they had maintained in the pastorate. Whether
this prophecy as to Bishop Brooks was fulfilled or not
we do not know, though the biographer of Brooks
records the Bishop's own feeling that the round of
episcopal functions was killing him. We can see,
however, at a glance that there is, in general, enough
ground for prophecies like that of the Christian Ad-
vocate, especially in the case of Methodist Bishops.
For the traveling is practically incessant, the swarms
of details to be attended to innumerable, and the
general distractions multitudinous.

Suppose we take the experience of a Bishop through
a Conference week, and think of what we can see
from the outside. The Bishop arrives at the seat of
the Conference on Tuesday evening. Very likely a
young people's mass meeting demands his presence.
The next morning the Conference begins its regular
sessions, and these require three hours and a half or
four hours of continuous attention every morning till
the next Monday or Tuesday. In the afternoon the
Cabinet of district superintendents meets at about

i66

THE PREACHER 167

half-past two and remains in session till dinner time,
to reassemble for a meeting of indefinite length after
dinner. On Sunday morning the Bishop must preach;
on Sunday afternoon he must conduct the ordination
service. He must have hours when the ministers and
laymen feel free to approach him. He must respond
to urgent telegrams and letters from other Bishops.
Moreover, he must find some few minutes to show
himself an appreciative and agreeable guest in the
home where he is being entertained, for it is not
customary, except in unusual circumstances, to send
a Bishop to a hotel when he is presiding over a
Conference.

Of course this is a description of Conference week,
and Conference weeks do not take more than perhaps
three months out of the year. The other months are
filled with committee meetings and Church dedica-
tions and private conferences too numerous to mention.
It is not to be assumed that this work is in itself neces-
sarily harder than the work of the pastorate, but it
can be very readily seen that this work consumes the
time, and the opportunities for creative reading and
study are not large. There comes a temptation, no
doubt, to use a sermon as a sermon and as a lecture,
and as an address to a class, and as an after-dinner
speech, as occasion may seem to require. There is
something indescribably pathetic in the experience of
Bishop Brooks as recorded in Allen's biography —
the fight for leisure for meditation, the retreat to rail-
road stations out of the reach of the kindly host, that
there might be some chance for reflection. And yet
it is to be doubted if the demands on the time of a

1 68 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

Protestant Episcopal Bishop are as heavy as those
on a Methodist Bishop.

The same editorial authority which we quoted above,
in a memorial article upon the life of Bishop Andrews,
declared that the preaching of Bishop Andrews con-
stantly improved during his term of office as a Bishop.
We think that this is the universal opinion of those
qualified to speak. The reasons for this constant
growth are not hard to find. First of all, while Bishop
Andrews worked with amazing devotion to his work,
he did not work needlessly. For example, he reduced
his correspondence to a minimum. He seldom wrote
except on occasions where only writing would do. We
have called attention before to the fact that he culti-
vated the power of doing his work effectively on the
first doing, and so was not under the necessity of
reviewing himself. He would not reopen cases of
appointment unless absolutely necessary, and he seldom
found it necessary even to explain ; so that his corre-
spondence was kept in the secondary place. Further-
more, the Bishop always found his way to the libraries
of the ministers with whom he stayed and he depended
upon them to put him upon the track of the latest
books. On one of the last journeys that he made he
passed a long, long time in the study of a young min-
ister going over the publications of the University
of Chicago Press. He thus kept himself in the cur-
rent of the newer publications, and stimulated his
mind by contact with fresh problems. Again, the
Bishop saw very clearly the dangers to preaching
in a life like his own, and he kept himself on the look-
out against those dangers. He was eager and in-

THE PREACHER 169

quisitive. He did not allow himself to become bored
by life but kept always the attitude of an interested
questioner and observer. It was said once of the
Prince of Wales, now the King of England, that just
by keeping his ears open he had become one of the best-
educated men in England, simply because every
distinguished specialist whom the Prince met was
naturally anxious to tell the Prince the most and the
best about the cause in which the specialist might
be interested. Bishop Andrews was a good listener;
and, moving much with men of leadership in various
fields, and keeping his mind alert to what these leaders
might say, he prevented his thought from moving in
ruts. The long journeys, too, gave him opportunity
for reflection.

Coming now to the preaching itself, we have to
say, first, that it was clear. The preaching of Bishop
Andrews could not by any possibility have been other-
wise than clear. He would not speak until he under-
stood. The preaching was orderly, so orderly that
its very system made it easy to remember. And the
preaching was genuine. There was one prominent
American preacher whose preaching Bishop Andrews
often discussed with intimate friends. While his com-
ments were not critical they, nevertheless, suggested
by contrast something of Bishop Andrews's own ideal
in sermonizing. The peculiarities of this preacher
w^ere two : he cared more for the effect on the audience
and for striking dramatic statement than for the sub-
stance of what he was saying. He seemed always to
be asking himself what would be oratorically most
effective rather than what would leave a true im-

lyo EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

pression upon the mind of the hearer. This was not
the ideal of Bishop Andrews. He was even afraid
of epigrams, lest they might turn the mind of the
hearer by ever so little from getting the truth which
he was trying to proclaim. The second peculiarity
of the American preacher under discussion was the
emphasis on passages written long before, when the
imagination was more vivid, and repeated verbatim
in the later sermons. This also was foreign to the
style of Bishop Andrews. His sermons were extem-
poraneous and, apart perhaps from their central con-
ception, were in constant process of change. They
were genuine utterances from the life as the preacher
happened to be living at the time of the delivery of
the sermon. The other man's utterances were effective
enough after a fashion, but there was a sort of lack
of genuineness in this verbatim handling of sermons
which belonged to a different period of his life. The
sermons were his own, to be sure, but they belonged
to an earlier vintage in his intellectual and spiritual
fruit-bearing, and did not come out of the life
with the directness of the utterances of Bishop
Andrews. There was with Bishop Andrews no
attempt at anything spectacular or striking, but the
very sincerity and genuineness of his sermons made
them impressive. There was one characteristic of
the preaching which did come down from another
day, but which came down not by the artificial pres-
ervation of a manuscript but by the warmth of a
passion which marked the ministry of Bishop Andrews
from the first, and which grew more and more pro-
nounced with him as the years went by — the evan-

THE PREACHER 171

gelical warmth and fervor of his appeals. He used
to say that preachers had only a few themes after all,
that they should preach on these in season and out
of season, that the claims of the Lord Christ as the
Saviour of men should at all times be kept in the
foreground. Bishop Andrews lived through a period
in which there came a change in the type of Methodist
preaching. When he first went into the ministry
the Methodist circuit riders were proclaiming the
power of Christ to save with a directness and vigor
which have seldom been surpassed. The preaching
produced emotional effects which meant in many
cases instant change from darkness to light. Through
the years of the life of the Bishop the Church in-
creased in the range and multiplicity of its activities
and the type of preaching changed to a less intense
tone. The Bishop saw the inevitability of this change,
but while he held himself in the very front of, all the
activities, and while he kept his mind open to any
new revelations which might come, he preserved the
warmth of the early days. There was a pervasive
something which came out of the very earnestness of
his effort which gave power to his appeals. The
Bishop desired first, last, and all the time to save men.
He did not allow his preaching to be carried apart
from this main aim by any other considerations what-
soever. To be sure, his idea of salvation broadened
during the years ; it meant more and more in the way
of response to the will of God; but this very fact
laid upon his conscience a greater responsibility. He
came more and more to distrust artificial manifesta-
tions of determination to do the will of God, such as

172 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

raising of hands and signing of cards, but he seldom
closed a sermon without an appeal to the man outside
the kingdom to align himself with the forces of right-
eousness. Surrender to the will of God meant to him,
first of all, something inner and vital, and he preached
in the conviction that this surrender could be brought
about by reasonable and kindly appeal in any religious
service.

We have said that the preaching of Bishop Andrews
was extemporaneous. The Bishop had from the
early years of his life an aversion to writing sermons,
though he did write and write much. In the later
years his sermon preparation consisted largely in the
writing of very careful outlines, and in thoroughly
going over the points in his mind. One very unusual
peculiarity of the Bishop's sermons is to be noted, in
view of the fact that they were thus prepared. It
very often happens that the best part of an extem-
poraneous address is the beginning and that the
address deteriorates as it moves along — deteriorates,
that is, from the standpoint of careful articulation of
the outline, though the fervor may increase. The
reason is clear. As the thinker goes over the sermon
in his mind he naturally begins at the beginning, and
before each successive advance to a new section goes
through what he has already prepared. As a result,
the beginning gets the most thorough preparation.
The sermons of Bishop Andrews improved as they
went along; in fact, the improvement was so marked
as to lead to the surmise that possibly the last part of
the sermon had been the one on which most of the at-
tention had been focused from the first.

THE PREACHER 173

We publish elsewhere the abstract of a sermon
delivered by Bishop Andrews at Cornell College,
Iowa, in 1904. This sermon was received with great
favor wherever it was delivered, and by the widest
variety of hearers. The saint found in it the rule of
life by which he walked, emphasis upon that practical
obedience through which comes the knowledge of
the will of God. The philosopher, on the other hand,
found in it the separation of the province of faith from
that of strict demonstration and paid tribute to the
keenness with which this distinction was made. The
sermon was delivered in one of the New Haven
churches at the time of the Yale bicentennial services
in 1 90 1 and made a profound impression upon one
of the most brilliant students who had come to Yale
in years, so profound that the student preserves to
this day the newspaper in w^hich the sermon was re-
ported. This power to impress hearers at opposite ends
of the intellectual scale came through the simplicity and
clearness of the Bishop's speech. The Bishop aimed
to make the least trained hearer in the audience under-
stand. If he could make him understand, the wiser
man could understand. And what Bishop Andrews
said was worth the wise man's hearing.

We publish also the address of Bishop Andrews at
the funeral services of President William McKinley
held in the Capitol at Washington. When Bishop
Andrews was telegraphed for to preach at the
McKinley service he was holding a Conference in
the Central West, and on receipt of the message had
only time to reach Washington in season for the
service. There was no chance for formal preparation

174 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

whatever. The remarkable feature about the address
under the circumstances was its moderation and
restraint. It is proverbial that it is always easy to
speak in extremes. Any man at all familiar with
public speech knows that extemporaneous delivery is
very apt to run to hyperbole. When we bear in mind
the circumstances under which the speech was de-
livered, and the excited temper of the nation, we may
well second the editorial utterance of the New York
Times, that the oration of Bishop Andrews was a
model of good taste and restraint.

If we were to dwell overmuch, however, on modera-
tion and restraint we would fall short of doing justice
to Bishop Andrews's fervor and oratorical impressive-
ness. At times he rose to heights of impassioned
utterance that made the profoundest impression. At
one of the Open Door Emergency conventions Bishop
Andrews made an address which showed such grasp
on missionary problems, and such force of exhorta-
tion, and such passion for the advancement of the
kingdom of God, that the speaker who was to follow
him on the program, himself an orator of no small
emotional effectiveness, declined to speak, and dis-
missed the audience, that the effect of Bishop
Andrews's utterance might not be lost.

We cannot do better in closing this chapter than
to quote from a tribute published by Dr. George P.
Eckman shortly after Bishop Andrews's death.

"A few days ago I saw in my mother's home a
picture of Bishop Andrews, made thirty-five years
ago, or shortly after his election to the episcopacy.
That portrait differs in many respects from the ap-

THE PREACHER 175

pearance of the venerable man over whose departure
we wept a few days ago. Yet, there is also much
similarity. The well-chiseled face, with its look of
wisdom and grace, the thoughtful brow, the kindly,
intelligent eyes, the general aspect of firmness com-
bined with benignity which made him such an attract-
ive figure in his later years, appear in that old picture.
You would recognize him as a man at the summit of
his profession, though you were unaware of his actual
position. He was born to be a Bishop. He had the
true bearing of the church primate. He was apostolic
in his manner and tone. In his latter days there was
a saintliness in his very moving. But there was no
mediaevalism about him. He was a genuine man with
good, red blood in his veins, practical wisdom in his
brains, and fighting mettle in his spirit. He belonged
to the twentieth century as soon as it dawned. He
understood the age in w'hich he lived. He was in
sympathy with the intellectual ferment of the times.
He believed that theology was a growing science. He
hailed the development of human thought with sincere
joy. He felt that criticism and investigation would
hasten the triumph of truth. One sentence in his
memorable address to the graduating class of Garrett
Biblical Institute, in 1906, indicates his working phi-
losophy regarding this matter : *Any inevitable move-
ment of the human understanding must be held as a
part of the divine order for man and an element of
human progress.'

"He was always a ready man, because he was a
full man. His acquaintance with general literature
was broad and accurate. It made one feel his own

176 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

insignificance when Bishop Andrews would ask him
if he had read this or that recent book. The breadth
and variety of his reading was shown by his famihar-
ity with the best fiction of the day. The diversity
of his acquirements made it possible for him to speak
effectively in an emergency for which no opportunity
for specific preparation had been given, and he often
amazed his best friends by the power of his address
on such occasions. The greatest sermon I ever heard
him preach was delivered under circumstances which
were little likely to provoke eloquence. It was a hot,
steaming, midsummer night in New York. An audi-
ence of less than two hundred persons had been
gathered in a tent. The air was stifling, the light
was dim, the congregation was lethargic, the occasion
was apparently without promise. His text was :
'Whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap.'
On these words he delivered one of the most masterly
discourses any man ever uttered. Like all his sermons,
it was a consummate piece of homiletic construction.
It contained every element that a good sermon should
possess. It was philosophic, hortatory, picturesque,
and deeply evangelistic. It convinced the judgment,
kindled emotion, and constrained the will. He dis-
cussed the psychology of habit profoundly, but so
lucidly that a child could have understood him. His
illustrations were dramatic to the last degree. His
appeal to sinners could scarcely have been excelled
in fervency and impressiveness. Altogether, the
sermon was a most wonderful exhibition of intellec-
tual and spiritual power. The inspiration of it was
in the man and not in his audience."

Ill

THE PERIOD OF RETIREMENT

LIFE IN BROOKLYN

BISHOP ANDREWS was retired from active
work in the episcopacy by the General Con-
ference which met at Los Angeles in 1904.
The vote for retirement did not mean that his services
had been in any way unacceptable to the Church.
When the Conference met the Bishop was in his
seventy-ninth year. Inasmuch as a vote to keep him
on the effective list would mean that he must be con-
sidered effective for a period of four years longer, it
seemed wise to the majority of the members of the
Conference to retire the Bishop while he was still in
excellent health and strength rather than to ask him
to continue a work which at any time might prove
too heavy. There is no doubt that the vote for retire-
ment came as something of a shock to Bishop Andrews.
He felt strong and vigorous, he was able to do more
than his share of the labor of the episcopacy, and felt
that he could carry the burden through another period
of four years. The shock, however, soon passed
away. The Bishop accepted the judgment of the
Conference with good grace. By the time he had
reached New York on his return he felt that while
there was some hardship about the method of epis-
copal superannuation, on the whole the Conference
had acted wisely. As for the principle of retirement

in itself, the Bishop conceded in private conversa-

179

i8o EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

tion that this was entirely correct. He felt that the
Church must insist upon the right to retire the Bishops,
and though he shrank somewhat from the method, he
could not help feeling that in a Church in which the
superannuation of ordinary ministers is every year
a necessity, the superannuation of Bishops should not
be resented by the Bishops themselves. Whether the
action of the General Conference of 1904 was wise or
not, that action certainly made possible a happy clos-
ing of Bishop Andrews's career.

After the General Conference of 1904 Bishop
Andrews removed to Brooklyn and took up his. res-
idence at 47 Brevoort Place. It was especially
delightful both to him and to his friends that he was
able thus to remove to the scene of his old-time labors.
The churches which he had once served were all
greatly changed, but the associations of Brooklyn
still kept their charm. To the Bishop's rooms — on
the corner of Fulton Street and Bedford Avenue —
there came through the next three years and more
a never-ending stream of callers, some renewing old
times, some seeking advice, some paying reverence to
the man whose leadership in the Church meant more
and more with every passing day. Bishop Andrews
was a great friend. In the days of his active epis-
copacy he managed to find time to spend many an
hour with such diverse characters as Dr. A. S. Hunt
and Dr. Benjamin M. Adams. Dr. Hunt, for many
years one of the secretaries of the American Bible
Society, was a long-time acquaintance and comrade
of the Bishop. Bishop Andrews was a lover of good
books in the realm of general literature. Dr. Hunt

LIFE IN BROOKLYN

i«i

possessed a magnificent library which he had mas-
tered so thoroughly that some of his admirers declared
that he could give on an instant's notice the substance
of any chapter in any book that he owned. The cozy
hours passed in this library were even in the Bishop's
active life among the most precious of his memories,
and in frequent conversations the Bishop lived these
hours over during the days of retirement. Dr.
Benjamin M. Adams, a remarkable preacher in
the New York East Conference, had an ability but
little short of genius for rough and yet incisive state-
ment of shrewd religious insight. To be sure, both
these men were gone when Bishop Andrews came to
Brooklyn in 1904, but he found others in whose society
he took great satisfaction. Dr. Charles S. Wing,
for many terms a presiding elder in the New York
East Conference, lived in the same building, and the
intimacy between these two increased to the end. Dr.
S. Parkes Cadman lived just a few steps from the
"Brevoort" and was a frequent caller upon the Bishop.
Across the East River were the many, many friends
whom the Bishop had learned to love in the years of
his residence in New York — among them especially
Dr. Frank Mason North, between w^hom and the
Bishop there existed a deepening intimacy.

In conversation with his closer friends Bishop
Andrews showed at his best. He was indeed a gentle-
man of the old school, as Bishop McDowell has said.
He did not believe that in conversation his speech
should be allowed to drop into the cheap or the trivial.
One explanation of his singularly pure diction as a
public speaker was the constant practice in clean

1 82 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

speaking that came in his ordinary conversation. The
charm about his purity in speech was its entire
naturalness. There was nothing strained or stilted.
He liked good stories and told many of them, and
had a keen sense of humor devoid of malice or sar-
casm. The chief mark of his conversation, however,
was its extreme kindliness, but his kindliness did not
interfere with his coming to a quick and sure under-
standing of the caliber of the men with whom he was
talking. If any man had imagined that because
Bishop Andrews was benign in appearance and cour-
teous and sympathetic in conversation, he could, there-
fore, be easily duped, he would have made a pro-
digious mistake.

The Bishop's passion for details took the form many
times of rendering little services of which no one
else would have thought. If a visitor at his home was
to take a train he would gladly give the most minute
attention to time-tables and to rates of fare and to
the checking of baggage. He could think of possible
contingencies and anticipate details of pleasure or dis-
comfort which would have occurred to no mind but
his ovv'n. If he had been a general he would have
excelled not only in the realm of grand strategy but
also in the sphere of the supervision of the baggage
train down to the last item. Though he was very
severe with himself in demanding exactness in any
kind of detail, he was very patient toward others. One
hot July day the family were about to start for Minne-
waska, where the Bishop had been for years such a
favorite that he came to be known among the summer
boarders as the Bishop of Minnewaska. On this par-

LIFE IN BROOKLYN 183

ticular occasion six trunks were to be checked through,
and at the very last minute it was discovered that
a member of the family had overlooked one of the
trunks, thus causing embarrassment and delay in the
program for the travel. This mistake was of the
kind Bishop Andrews himself would never have
made, but he had no word of criticism or annoyance
for the one who had made the mistake.

The Bishop delighted in rendering services to the
ministers of Brooklyn during this period of retire-
ment. He loved to preach and was not quite happy
if he had to pass a Sunday without preaching. He
used to say that if he had no prearranged engage-
ment he would go off to the outskirts of the city to
some small church whose pastor's plans would not
be seriously disarranged by the postponement of his
own sermon to a later date in order that the Bishop
might preach. If a minister was sick he would be
unremittingly faithful in pastoral attentions to him
and unwearied in any assistance that he might
render. Just a few months before he died he took
a long ride through Brooklyn to hold a Quarterly
Conference for a presiding elder who happened to
be ill.

It is hardly fitting that a sketch like this should
intrude far into the sacredness of Bishop Andrews's
family relations, but his delight in his home was known
to all who knew him. It was given to him and Mrs.
Andrews to live together for more than fifty years.
It would be hard to find a more perfect companion-
ship than that of Bishop and Mrs. Andrews. Though
the tastes of both were for the highest and best, in

1 84 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

many ways they supplemented each other; The mind
of Bishop Andrews was preeminently practical in
its cast. He had little talent for speculative meta-
physics, for example. Mrs. Andrews, on the other
hand, had been for years a student of the profoundest
books in philosophy. She read and reread the works
of Professor Bowne with increasing satisfaction.
It was from conversation with Mrs. Andrews that the
Bishop received much of his knowledge of modern
philosophical problems and much of his sympathy
with the new currents of thought flowing through
the theological world. Between such minds the con-
versation naturally took a wide range. Political
events, the latest books, development in the world of
art — these and countless other realms were explored
in the family conversation. During these years the
daughter, Miss Grace, was at home, bringing to the
family circle a wealth of cultivated discernment and
taste in which the father took great joy. The family
of Mr. and Mrs. Ingraham were not far away, and
the other children, Mr. Edward Andrews, at Birm-
ingham, Alabama, and Mrs. Nixon, of Boston, made
frequent pilgrimages to Brevoort Place.

About his own personal religious experience Bishop
Andrews was inclined to be reticent except with
friends whom he thoroughly knew. He came into
the Church at a very early age, and there is no record
anywhere to show that any sharp struggle attended
the beginning of his Christian life. He believed in
testimony services in prayer meeting but would not
say anything about his own experience except what
might be of value to all. His inner aspirations and

LIFE IN BROOKLYN 185

inspirations he regarded in the light of confidences
between himself and the Divine Father. Occasionally
he would reveal to a friend something of the struggle
through which he had passed at this or that crisis,
but only occasionally, as, for example, when at Los
Angeles in connection with the vote of retirement he
told Dr. E. S. Tipple that he had had a struggle. All
who knew him, however, were aware that he Avas
in a real sense a man of prayer. He did not look
for startling or spectacular answers to his petitions
but found in prayer a quickening exercise and disci-
pline which stimulated his entire life.

If we were to speak of a growth in grace on the
part of Bishop Andrews, we should probably have to
say that the most notable line of religious development
came in his increasing self-control over a temper natu-
rally quick, ^^'hen Bishop Andrews was a young min-
ister he was somewhat given to sharp judgment of his
brethren. His mother once said of him : "I am afraid
that Edward is inclined to be censorious." We have
spoken elsewhere of the extreme kindliness of the
Bishop and of his equable temperament. We do not
wish to give the impression that this gentleness came of
itself. Those who stood closest to the Bishop would be
the first to declare that the charitableness of his mature
life was really a triumph of grace over a nature which
if left to itself might have been somewhat harsh.

Throughout all his life the Bishop kept the need
for the personal salvation of all those with whom he
came in contact uppermost in his mind. He dared
speak to men personally about their religious con-
dition with a directness which made his word the

1 86 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

word of a high priest. The writer of these lines once
saw him draw a prominent pohtician in New York
city to one side in a social gathering and engage him
in deep and earnest conversation, the conversation
being a direct appeal to the politician to bring a re-
ligious purpose into all his activities. In a fatherly
way he more than once pointed out to his friends
errors of which they were in peril. He once said to
a friend : "I must go to So-and-So and tell him that
he is in danger of falling into a certain ruinous habit.
I have thought of this for a long, long time, and am
afraid that my words will break the friendship be-
tween us. Nevertheless, I feel that it is my duty to
speak to him."

It may seem strange to those who saw the serene
countenance of Bishop Andrews to be told that he
had his moments of deep discouragement. The dis-
couragement had a double root. To begin with the
Bishop was a sufferer through many years from
insomnia. Many a time he would find rehef from his
restlessness only by rising from his bed and begin-
ning work at his desk at two o'clock in the morning.
Quite likely this lifelong insomnia was partly respon-
sible for an occasional feeling of discouragement.
The other factor in the discouragement, however,
was the loftiness of his own personal ideals. He
never could be satisfied with himself. In his early
years he felt compelled to give up writing his sermons
because he never could bear to read them after he
had written them. At times he would be distressed
over his own "inability to preach," as he called it.
He was to preach one day for Dr. A. H. Tuttle, of

LIFE IN BROOKLYN 187

the Newark Conference. Just before he rose to
preach he walked over to Dr. Tuttle in evident dis-
tress and requested him to leave the room. Dr. Tuttle
desired to know why. "I can preach before the people
but not before you," was the response. On another
occasion he remarked to a dear friend that it seemed
to him that his own life had been an abject failure,
and seemed inexpressibly grateful for the friend's
word of encouragement. As we think of these scenes
we must not misunderstand them. They were really
indications of the strength of Bishop Andrews. His
ideals were so high that they kept him at all times
genuinely humble and modest.

In kindly ministrations to his friends, in instructive
and inspiring services of preaching, in almost continu-
ous work upon church boards and committees, the
closing months of Bishop Andrews's life passed away.
In the fall of 1907 the Bishops were to meet at Spo-
kane, and the Missionary Board was to meet at
Seattle, W^ashington. A number of new questions
w^ere to come up at Seattle in view of the reorganiza-
tion of the Missionary Society, and Bishop Andrews
felt that he must be present. To go, however, meant
considerable personal sacrifice. There was the long
journey across the continent, and the absence from
the friends at home, an absence which became more
painful to him with every passing month. Still, the
Bishop felt that he must go, and he made the journey,
first to Spokane, thence to Seattle and Portland,
thence to Minneapolis to a family reunion, thence to
Little Falls, New York, where he preached what
proved to be his last sermon. The intellectual

1 88 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

vigor of the Bishop was never more marked
than on this trip. He took part in the discussions at
Seattle with keen insight into the new situations
created by the reorganization of the Society, and at
Portland charmed all by quite an unusual display of
wit. As soon as he reached his home, however, his
friends saw that he had very seriously impaired his
strength. What seemed to be an attack of the grippe
came upon him while his vitality was lowered and
resulting complications grew increasingly formidable.
The Bishop had reached home on November 25, after
an absence of one month and one day. His condition
grew gradually worse from the time of his arrival,
and he passed away peacefully on the last day of the
year 1907. Throughout the sickness there was
an occasional flash of the characteristic Andrews
spirit, which showed that the disease had made no in-
roads upon his will power. One day as he lay upon
his bed he remarked, "I think I will get up." The
nurse replied, "The doctor's orders are that you must
lie quiet." The Bishop responded in his short, decisive
way, "Nevertheless, I will get up." His body, how-
ever, proved too weak to sustain his determination.

The first shock which followed the announcement
of the death of the Bishop was very great, but after
the shock had somewhat subsided there was a very
general recognition of the fitness of the manner in
which the good life had closed. Bishop Andrews
had worked up to within a month of the end, his last
services had been valuable to the Church, and he
passed away without great suffering, with his mental
and spiritual forces in full vigor.

II

TRIBUTES

THE funeral services of Bishop Andrews were
held in the New York Avenue Church on
the afternoon of Friday, January 3, 1908,
with an immense audience present. Many things said
at his funeral were so truly descriptive of the real man
that we feel constrained to quote from each of the
addresses.

Dr. W. V. Kelleysaid:

"Bishop Andrews as a preacher links himself in
my mind by one peculiar achievement with Richard
S. Storrs. Bishop Andrews' serraions were archi-
tecture, as were those of Dr. Storrs. They were built
up from broad foundations and symmetrically con-
solidated into unity. There was one intellectual feat
that I noticed in both of them to such a degree as I
have not noted in any other two men. That was the
faculty of building up toward a climax by a succes-
sion of clauses, very likely toward the end of the dis-
course and in the nature of a summing up — a series
of clauses that balanced on equal wings, each one dis-
crete and discriminate from the other, no one a
repetition in any degree of what went before, each
one containing a point, and the whole constituting a
progress and advance, steadily moving toward a great
comprehensive conclusion. When Storrs reached

that climax he always touched it with a flash of

189

I90 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

imagination, but Bishop Andrews was not imaginative.
The arts of the rhetorician were foreign to his
mind as they would be to the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court. His clauses did not go up to the
climax like a flight of birds ; rather, he built his clauses
up like the courses of stone that built the Great Pyr-
amid; he carried them up in symmetrical and rising
construction until the peak stood clear in the sunlight
and the reared structure stood firm from foundation
to pinnacle. As a master builder of sermons, of the
sermon regarded as the noblest sacred architecture
in thought and expression, he was not surpassed by
Richard S. Storrs, which is saying pretty much all
that can be said.

"By a certain event and certain resemblance Bishop
Andrews stands in my mind linked with William
McKinley. When the most famous and illustrious
layman of the Methodist Episcopal Church lay dead
by an assassin's hand the nation planned to hold a
great funeral under the dome of the Capitol at Wash-
ington, When the eyes of those who had the solemn
services in charge swept the land for the most illustri-
ous and distinguished minister of the Church to which
McKinley belonged — if that man could be found —
the man who would bring most prestige, most of
dignity and solid worth, most of trustworthy wisdom
of speech to that occasion, the call went out to the
North Ohio Conference at Mount Gilead, Ohio, where
Bishop Andrews was presiding. Well did the Chris-
tian Advocate say that when the word went forth
over the land that Bishop Andrews would make the
address over McKinley's dead body the Methodist

TRIBUTES 191

Church dismissed from its mind all anxiety concern-
ing the occasion. That address was written or, rather,
composed in unfavorable circumstances, with but
little time. Summoned in the midst of Conference
business, he hurried it to its close, quickly boarded a
train, sat down for a time in a parlor car to try to
write out what he should say, presently gave up that
effort, retired into himself for meditation, and, shut-
ting the door of his mind, closeted it with its subject,
and so rode on through the night. Reaching Wash-
ington in the morning, he had almost to hurry from
the train to the place of the service under the dome of
the Capitol. When the Chief Justice of the United
States had listened to that address he turned at its
close to the man next him and said, 'What a fine and
fitting address !' Not only by that stately occasion
but also by a certain resemblance is Bishop Andrews
linked in my mind with William McKinley. When
our martyred President died, in Buffalo, some one
who knew him well said as he came out of the house
where McKinley had breathed his last to the words,
'Nearer, my God, to thee,' 'The Almighty never
breathed the breath of life into a more amiable nature.'
Many here and elsewhere would apply those words
to Bishop Andrews. Firm though he was, his was
an amiable nature, and he was as tactful and gracious
as McKinley. By that public funeral these two men
stand linked together in the history of Church and
state, as Bishop Simpson and Abraham Lincoln, by
the funeral oration at Springfield. Simpson and
Andrews were as illustrious in their sphere as were
Lincoln and McKinley in theirs.

192 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

"How was this Bishop regarded inside the Church ?
A young man, twelve years in the ministry, said
recently to one he was talking with about Bishop
Andrews, 'There is a man whose boots I would gladly
black, or render to him any other menial service he
would permit me to render.' Who was it said he
would have liked to be Shakespeare's body-servant?
Well, it was just as fit for this young minister to say,
*I would willingly black the boots of Bishop Andrews,'
and that, I take it, was a fair expression of the ven-
eration in which he was held by thousands and thou-
sands of laymen and ministers.

"How was he regarded outside the Church? Go
to Washington and go with him to a state reception
at the White House ; with the judges of the Supreme
Court there, with the members of the Cabinet present,
with the representatives of the army and the navy
there, with the members of both houses of Congress
there, with ambassadors from foreign lands there,
with prominent citizens there from all over the land,
visiting Washington. Go with him from room to
room, watch the faces of men as they meet and greet
him, and read in their faces and their manner the
reverence with which they speak to this man, and you
will see, as he passes on from chamber to chamber
through the brilliant throng, the nation's representa-
tives unroll their respect and lay it down like a rich
carpet before his feet, deep-piled and velvety and
warm with love, for this man to walk upon. Always
and everywhere he walked on such a carpet."

Bishop D. A. Goodsell said :

"In the death of Edward G. Andrews the Church,

TRIBUTES 193

in the judgment of his colleagues, has lost one of the
greatest Bishops it has ever had, great in every de-
partment of ministerial and episcopal labor. It is
dilTlicult to say where he was greatest, so rounded
and so completed was he. As a preacher, strong,
logical, ardent, noble. As an administrator, tender,
tactful, firm, unsurpassed within the memory of any
of his colleagues in his knowledge of the constitu-
tion and legal history of the Church of his love. He
was a marvel of painstaking accuracy in any work
committed to his hands. He was so judicial that his
opinion upon any question of law was to his colleagues
the final word, as he approached the consideration of
such questions with perfect candor, with a deep sense
of justice and without any idiosyncrasy of opinion
that might lead him to depart from the strictest legal
interpretation. He was cheerful, even joyous, and
yet always maintained himself within the limits of
Christian dignity. His platform work was as fine
as his pulpit work. He was most unassuming in his
bearing. He was distrustful of his ability, yet he
put his great strength always to the utmost upon
every task to which he was assigned. In the whole
thirty-five years of his episcopate I think no one ever
heard him say a word, and, assuredly, he never did
a deed, that was unworthy of the office which he held.
He was open and candid when he ought to be, and
reticent when that was his duty. In our homes he
was a most charming guest, in our travels a most
delightful companion, and in his own home a most
considerate host. He was as a friend at once inspir-
ing by the quality of his ideas, the high plane upon

194 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

which he Hved, and restful, also, in the calm which
was his through a great trust in God and through the
Christian philosophy to which he had attained."

Bishop McDowell said:

"It would be an utter impropriety for me to at-
tempt an analysis of his qualities. We did not an-
alyze him while he was with us. We did not make
an inventory of his qualities, certainly not of his
defects. We just loved him, admired him, trusted
him and rejoiced in him. His total impression upon
us was all we could desire. Those New Testament
terms say it as well as we could say it. He was and,
I venture to say, is, a man of God — not less a man of
God that he is now a man with God. He had a per-
sonal understanding of the religious life. He knew
for himself the doctrines of grace. He was deeply
religious. He prayed like a saint or a mystic. Once
in a while in prayer we were caught up in the sweep
of his expression until we fairly saw things which it
is not lawful to utter. No one could pray like that
in public who did not do much praying in private.
He defined piety in his life. That seems the key to
it. His piety was both a rapture and a conviction;
it ran through his feeling, his thought, and his con-
science. He would have been as ashamed of a false
emotion as of a false statement. His piety was like
a heart of oak in the midst of his feelings, his think-
ing, and his conduct. His emotional life was as gen-
uine as it was warm. Jesus Christ was at the center
of it, making it both honest and vital. He would not
assume, nor affect, an emotion he did not really feel.
His emotions were like his perfect manners. He

TRIBUTES 195

would neither put them on nor put them off. He
would have scorned an affectation not as a weakness
but as a kind of impiety.

"This piety gave the same sort of integrity, reality,
and genuineness to his thinking. He regarded think-
ing as a duty. It never occurred to him as a godly
man that he could quit thinking. On the long journey
to the Pacific Coast in October he carried his Greek
Testament, and read it daily, and during that journey
he made his traveling companion read him one of the
latest books — the Cole lectures at Vanderbilt Univer-
sity by the late Ian Maclaren. His mental life had
conscience in it. That made it active and made it
honest. He read many books. No man read more.
He kept up with modern thought. The Episcopal
Address in 1900 was the work of a man alive at the
top. A year and a half ago at Garrett's Semicenten-
nial he gave that profound address on the 'Pastor and
His Bible.' It is probably the most notable utter-
ance made in our Church that year. I cannot forget
how as we walked together two days before its de-
livery he outlined it to me, and then said : 'I am no
longer young. I shall not have many more occasions
equal to this in my life. The times are troubled. I
suppose I owe it to the Church, to my brethren in
the ministry, to leave my testimony.' He left it. He
knew the changes in thought that had come since
he entered the ministry in 1848. He did not ignore
them nor seek to belittle their meaning for thought
and faith. That same piety of thinking shot through
the address like light. It saved him from being either
a reactionary or a radical. It was the event of a

196 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

lifetime to listen while he went on. He made an
atmosphere in which men, modern men, could live
and breathe. He made room in which many men
could walk and work. The roof was lifted above our
heads so that we saw the heavens open and new angels
of faith and power ascending and descending. It
was late afternoon when he closed, but it seemed to
many that the sun was rising, not going down. To
some men there that day and to many others else-
where the address was a new working document for
our Church, not unlike John Wesley's great paper on
'The Character of a Methodist.'

"It was of a piece with his summary of our funda-
mental doctrine in the address at Chicago in 1900.
Indeed, his mental life was all of a piece. Piety gave
integrity to his intellectual processes. It is worth
much to our generation to have had such an illustrious
example of one who studied with the diligence and
candor of a scientist, reasoned with the accuracy of
a logician, related truths with the grasp of a phi-
losopher, and through it all prayed with the faith and
vision of a saint and mystic."

Dr. S. Parkes Cadman said:

*'He was content that lesser people should loom
adventitious in the public eye, for he stood in his lot
to the end of his days. He did not cry nor strive,
nor cause his voice to be heard in the streets. But
men learned to trust his words, and the wisdom and
discretion in him were ripe and fruitful. I believe
it no stroke of temerity to hold that he will be classed
with the greatest of his predecessors. And this prin-
cipally because the elements were so well mixed in

TRIBUTES 197

him : a sacred prator of chastened style and sober
viriHty, guiltless of oratorical display awakening
effusiveness; a scholar whose intrepid search for
reality delivered him from the disfigurements of the
vain traditions of men ; a saint who never affected
more than he felt nor trespassed beyond the bound-
aries of reverence in his confessions of the unspeak-
able glories, his very restraint became his armed
might, and praise was none less praise because it sat
silent on his tongue.

"He lived as a Bishop in the fierce light that
searches the occupants of a demanding position. He
saw the episcopacy pass beyond the glamour of
earlier romance and enter an almost more arduous
sphere. He knew the perils that attend a weakened
leadership in the Church of God, and how that Chris-
tion democracy to-day will not be contented with the
recital of proud and successful epochs that are gone.
But for him it was a fitting and a long-held educa-
tion, increasing in weight and meaning and gather-
ing luster all the way along. And as he drew near
to the heavenly country, where he was presently to
put ashore, the spicy gales of that paradise began to
break upon him. Time dealt very gently with this
child of hers, before she yielded him to the eternities.
To the last hour of mortal life he was quick with
sympathy and vital with love. Robed in the vener-
able loveliness of age, stages of decay were scarcely
evident, or if seen here and there they but increased
his winsomeness. A light not of earth shone on his
beloved form, and when he stood forth in the Church
for teaching and exhortation she gave praise to her

198 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

Head for so precious a gift prolonged in unabated
vigor."

Dr. J. M. Buckley said:

"Not one of the more than fifty bishops in the
history of the Church resembled Bishop Andrews.
He was industrious, but not more so than Bishop
Janes. He was ever a gentleman. So was John
Emory before him, and William X. Ninde after him.
What, then, was there in Bishop Andrews which sets
him forth as a figure unparalleled? Why is it, if
it be so, that it is difficult to analyze him? The per-
fect man in moral and intellectual integrity never
makes a full impression at any given period. Some
such men are immovable and accomplish nothing.
Others are sluggish and cannot be fully understood.

"The actual personality of Edward Gayer Andrews
is to be found in his balance, with power over all his
qualities. His mental, physical, and emotional sus-
ceptibilities and all his faculties were above those of
the average of mankind and all of them worked, not
obliquely, not in a slow and feeble manner, but always
producing the exact amount of power to cover the
situation. Who ever heard him speak in an illogical
or unforceful way? Who ever saw him disturbed in
presiding at an Annual Conference? Who ever, in
the General Conference, saw him obliged to turn to
a brother Bishop and ask for instruction before giv-
ing a decision? Who ever heard him preach a poor
sermon ? Who ever heard of his being unable to enter
into any company without embarrassment, without
assumption? Who ever saw anything of the nature
of imperiousness in him? The utterances of some

TRIBUTES 199

bold or absurd person who might interrupt even the
presiding officer, and be out of order in doing this,
may have, for a moment, irritated him, but this
master-balance with power caused him to stand as
the man of self-control, the man who, having to say
a disagreeable thing, said it in the most agreeable
manner he could command.

''It would not be proper to apply to him the word
'enthusiasm,' for enthusiasm is liable to be radical,
to send forth power beyond the necessities of the
occasion, and, therefore, suggest flightiness, which
means that the person was unduly excited, and raises
a question whether judgment be sound. 'Ardor' is
the word which describes his state at all times unless
fatigue prevented its rise. His spirit could not fitly
be compared to a mountain stream, nor to a sluggish
stream running through a plain. Bishop Andrews
must be compared, in his lifework, to a deep and wide,
but clear stream with a steady movement to the ocean.
Only one river in our whole land seems suited to
symbolize his spirit and movement — the beautiful
river that rises in the White Mountains and passes
down through the States, the beautiful Merrimac.
Once a friend reported to him that this simile had been
applied to him; he received the compliment with a
smile and said, 'I am afraid there is low water some-
times.' If he were living, and here, we would not
dare to speak of him so. He might at least think
we had some ulterior end. He could not imagine
himself to be what we know he was.

"Officialism sometimes makes phonographs and
automatic machines of men, but not so was it with

200 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

him. Once he said to a friend : 'I am worried with
these troubles. Here there is a church that will be
greatly grieved if I reappoint to it a certain man, and
here is a man that will be practically ruined if I do
not appoint him there.' In the silence of the night
the Bishop arose, being careful not to awaken a
brother who occupied the same room. He arose
softly, knelt at a chair, and there remained whisper-
ing prayers to Almighty God to teach him how to
compose this most serious difficulty. The Methodist
Episcopal Church will never complain of 'officialism'
if its administrators blend with official authority
humble, earnest prayer to God for direction."

We add also a few other tributes taken here and
there from a great number. Dr. Thomas E. Elliott,
of Seattle, Washington, wrote:

"At the annual meeting of the Board of Foreign
Missions in this city I secured Bishop Edward G.
Andrews to preach for me at the Queen Anne Metho-
dist Episcopal Church on November lo, 1907. It
occurred to me this may have been his last sermon.
He preached from the text : *He saved others ; him-
self he cannot save.' He preached with vigor for
fifty minutes and made a profound impression on the
congregation. At the close of the sermon I had to
go immediately to a funeral. He, knowing this, said,
*I will not go over to dinner with you, as I know you
have to hurry' — this in answer to my invitation to
him to dine with us. He left the church for the hotel,
and as we watched him for a short distance, and saw
an approaching car, we said, 'There, that is too bad,
he will miss that car.' But, to my surprise, he ran

TRIBUTES aoi

like a young man and caught it. The next day he
spoke with much fervor on the missionary work.

"Bishop Andrews was one of the most saintly men
I ever knew. Never did a pastor get anything but
the best he could give from his hands. His kindly
look won his audience; his words brought his hearers
to tears ; his sermons, as a whole, left a lasting impres-
sion. His life, so far as I have known him, has in-
spired me, and will continue to inspire to the end."

Dr. W. D. Marsh, pastor at Little Falls, New York,
writes thus concerning the last sermon of our Bishop's
life. The sermon was delivered at Little Falls on
the Sunday before Bishop Andrews reached home
from his last trip :

"I never heard Bishop Andrews preach as well as
he did that day, though I had heard very great sermons
from him before. That day he seemed inspired. In
very deed and without exaggeration, it was massive,
magnificent, and glorious. His long life of thought
and experience fitted him to declare the gospel of
God as few men have ever done it. I shall never
forget that day nor the preacher. He was so delight-
ful, too, in our home, that we loved him as well as
honored him."

Professor William North Rice, of Wesleyan Uni-
versity, wrote :

"He was so true and brave and gentle — an Israelite
indeed, in whom was no guile. His vision of the truth
was so clear, his spirit so candid, his loyalty to
his best convictions so perfect. Well-deserved honors
came to him richly, and how meekly he bore them !
How absolutely unpretentious he was ! How much of

202 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

deep and earnest thought he could conceal in a sermon
apparently so simple that a child could enjoy it and
think he understood it! How the whole church has
loved and trusted him ! No head so clear, no hand so
steady at the helm in church affairs in our generation.

"I am thankful that I have seen and known him,
not only in public, listening to the sermons which were
so clear that thoughtless hearers did not know how
deep they were, or watching the judicial temper and
mingled firmness and courtesy with which he presided
in a Conference ; but that I have also had the privilege
of meeting him in his home and mine, where I have
seen how gentle and unobtrusive a great man could be.
He has been one of the saints who have been to me an
inspiration.

"How young he was when past fourscore! Hos-
pitable to new ideas as when he was in his prime.
Yes, he zuas in his prime at fourscore. He seemed to
grow in power at an age when other men decay. And,
if he must be mortal like the rest of us, I am glad that
there was no long period of decay, no weary time in
which he who had borne so strongly and so tenderly
the cares of others had to be borne in weakness and
helplessness by others. From an earthly life so full
and strong, so rich in honor to himself and in blessing
to others, he has passed suddenly — in his case it is easy
for us to believe^ — into a life yet fuller and stronger and
richer."

Dr. William V. Kelley, at a memorial service held
at Saint Louis by the General Committee on Foreign
Missions of the Methodist Episcopal Church, Novem-
ber 9, 1908, spoke as follows:

TRIBUTES 203

^'In the make-up and methods of Edward G.
Andrews there was nothing startHng, dramatic, or
spectacular. His quahties were of the sterHng, not
the showy, sort. The man was so rounded and sym-
metrical in himself, and so uniform, regular, and
unostentatious in his ways, as oftentimes to prevent
the undiscerning from perceiving his superiority and
real impressiveness. No particular quality or faculty
was conspicuous, for all faculties in him were uni-
formly excellent. As were his abilities, so was his
work — uniform, regular, reliable ; not spurts, but
maintaining steadily a high level of efficiency, admin-
istering all affairs wisely, and carrying all interests
safely.

"Twenty-five years ago one of the supreme judges
of our communion said : 'Bishop Andrews fills the
bill all round; the Church perceives no deficiency in
him on any occasion or at any point.' And in the
closing decade of his life, so unimpaired were ah his
faculties, so great and broad was his wisdom, and so
sound his judgment, that his colleagues spoke of him
as 'a wonderful man.'

"He was modest in his self-estimate, and did not
feel that in any particular he had fully attained or
was already perfect; but his fellow men sometimes
said to each other when he passed by, 'Mark the per-
fect man.' Certain it is that so large a number of
strong and useful abilities and of admirable and at-
tractive qualities has seldom in all the history of our
Church been assembled in one personality. And from
this sum total there seems nothing to deduct on
account of freak or flaw or observable fault. There

204 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

was no seamy side to his character or life, but smooth
consistency on every side.

"Michael Angelo in advanced age worshiped the
beauty of the normal. The blind old artist used to
have himself led to the famous Torso in the Vatican
that he might pass his hand over it and feel with his
fingers the perfect outline of part of a normal human
form, no bone in it displaced, no muscle distorted, no
excess or defect at any point — the marble embodi-
ment of human symmetry. In Edward G. Andrews
we saw the beauty of the normal and the symmetrical.

"As he was possibly unsurpassed in the aggregate
excellence of his character and life, so also he
rendered a probably unsurpassed and possibly un-
paralleled sum total of official service. For this fact
a list of explanations can be given. His unvarying
health enabled him to keep going all the time. In all
his life he never sent for a doctor to come to see him
until after he was seventy-three years old. The
almost equal good health of his family also kept him
from detention by domestic affliction. Not more
than once, or at the most twice, in his over three
decades of episcopal work did anything prevent him
from presiding over a Conference to which he had
been assigned. In addition to his own work, he often
took the Conferences and filled the engagements of
his brother Bishops when they were ill or in
affliction.

"Moreover, his inflexible habits of fidelity and
punctuality insured his presence at every meeting or
occasion where duty or promise or expectation
required him to be ; and at every meeting of committee

TRIBUTES 205

or board or Conference, it was his habit to be pres-
ent at the moment named, in time for the opening of
business and to remain until the close to see the last
least item of business finished. The fact that he kept
this up incessantly through thirty-two long years of
active effective episcopal life makes it probable that
in sum total of official service his record is unsur-
passed, and quite possibly unequaled in all the history
of our Church.

"Furthermore, as adding to his sum total of values,
his knowledge of Church law and his judicial mind,
together with his habitual prudence, cautiousness,
and careful consideration, made his administration
and rulings wise and sound and entirely profitable to
the Church. Still further, his methodical habits,
scrupulous, conscientious, and painstaking accuracy,
saved his work from confusion and his reports from
error."

Dr. Theodore L. Cuyler wrote in the Christian
Advocate of September 3, 1908:

"My acquaintance with him and with Gilbert
Haven began in 1845 ^^ Middletown, when they were
students in the Wesleyan University. Almost thirty
years after that I had them at my table to meet D. L.
Moody, and I said to him, 'There are two noble
Bishops, and I knew them both when they were
promising youths in college.' My departed friend
never sought the office of Bishop; but the fact that
the General Conference that elected him was meeting
here in Brooklyn, where he was then stationed, helped
to swell his majority, for every one had a loving word
to say for him. During my long life of four score

2o6 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

and six, I have been well acquainted with a large
number of your Bishops, from the venerable Elijah
Hedding onward, and with some of them intimately.
But not one of them has ever surpassed my dear
Brother Andrews in winsome courtesy, clear-eyed
sagacity, sound wisdom, and most fervid Christ-lov-
ing zeal for everything true and holy. In behalf of
his Presbyterian brethren let me lay this brief tribute
among the thousands that crown his beautiful
memory."

The following affectionate tribute came from Judge
Andrews :

"His history as educator and as minister and
Bishop in the Church he loved is an open book.
Others are better qualified to estimate the influence
he exercised in his ministry. It has seemed to me
that in him the intellectual and emotional natures
were so harmoniously blended as to give him peculiar
power as a preacher. He had a broad intellectual
vision united with an intense human sympathy and
an ever-dominating sense that religion alone was a
power capable of meeting the needs of individuals
and of protecting society and civilization against dis-
rupting influences. He accepted with unquestioning
belief the mysteries of the Christian faith, but in his
preaching he put little emphasis on theological subtle-
ties. His primary aim was to win men to the accept-
ance of the gospel and to the leading of a Christian
life. The life of my brother is full of precious mem-
ories to those in the family circle. He was eminently
social and had a keen sense of humor. He loved his
family and relatives with an affection never abated

TRIBUTES 207

or dulled by distance or by the difference in pursuits
or circumstances. He was always tender, considerate,
and helpful. He seldom failed to visit his brothers
and sisters on his journeys at however great a sacrifice
of time or strength, and they looked forward to these
occasions with unqualified pleasure. Shortly before
his death, on his return from Seattle, the surviving-
brothers and sisters met at ^Minneapolis and the pleas-
ant memories of that meeting will not soon be effaced.
The husband, the father, and the brother has left us,
but his fragrant memory and life is a consolation to
the bereaved and sorrowful."

Dr. Thomas Bowman Stephenson, of England,
wrote :

"I must begin this letter by laying a wreath, in the
name of British Methodism, on the grave of Bishop
Andrews. I am confident that the entire mother
Church of Methodism will approve my action, for
Bishop Andrews visited our Conference in the year
1894 and made an impression which has never faded
in the minds of those who heard his official utter-
ances and met him in private. Already venerable in
age, 'his bow abode in strength.' Modest, courteous,
dignified, brotherly, wise both in speech and silence,
and carrying with him an unction of the Holy One,
he was the very model of a Christian Bishop. His
address, long but not a moment too long, was one of
the finest utterances we have ever heard from a rep-
resentative. Bishop Simpson, by his two marvelous
sermons, at Liverpool in 1857, and at Burslem in
1870, left upon the Conference an impression of
mighty preaching which has never been equaled, and

2o8 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

which is a golden memory to those, now becoming
very few, who can recall those occasions. But even
Simpson's addresses were not finer than that of Bishop
Andrews. It could not be surpassed as an exposition
of the principles which underlie the constitution of
his Church, as a picture of the march of his Church
to ever-widening victory, and as a sagacious anticipa-
tion alike of the successes and the dangers which
awaited his Church in the coming time. His was a
great personality, without the least self-consciousness.
He was a true saint, without a tinge of sanctimonious-
ness. He was a 'master of assemblies,' yet simple
and sincere as a little child. When such a servant of
Christ is granted to the prayers of the Church until
he is well past his eightieth year, murmuring at his
removal would be unseemly indeed. Surely we must
say, 'Our loss is his infinite gain,' and give thanks to
the Lord of life, for his 'servant departed this life in
his faith and fear,' while we pray that 'with him and
all the saved we may be partakers of thy heavenly
kingdom.' I have one delightful memory of Bishop
Andrews, in company with another great Bishop of
the Church, Randolph S. Foster. I was spending a
few days at Marthas Vineyard. Foster was also stay-
ing there, and I spent delightful hours in listening to
his wonderful talk of things deepest and highest.
Andrews came down for a day or two. Their courtesy
to me was beautiful, and much beyond my desert.
They suggested to me that we should have a drive
together. So in due time we set out, driving on a
road which bordered the breathing Atlantic. A
bright sun was shining, all nature seemed at her best,

TRIBUTES 209

and these two fathers of the Church conversed on the
welfare of the Church and the mysteries of faith and
love. They accepted with respect my little contribu-
tions to the talk of the moment. But I was well
content to listen, so far as courtesy would permit.
And that golden association with these great and good
men is a picture in my mind which I think will not
fade throughout eternity. I cannot finish this little
ofifering of affectionate respect better than by quoting
the words in which the British Conference recognized
the character and the work of its American visitor:
'We received with high satisfaction your fraternal
messenger, the Rev. Bishop Andrews. His dignified
and affectionate bearing, his eloquent and luminous
exposition of the constitution, genius, and position of
your Church, his sermons and speeches on several
important occasions commended and endeared him
to us all. We rejoice that God gives you, in your
chief pastorate, worthy successors of Asbury, Mc-
Kendree, and Simpson.' 'Long may the bright suc-
cession rise among you of noble Christian men in
Church and state.' "

Dr. H. A. Buttz, of Drew Theological Seminary,
wrote :

"The characteristic which impresses one in rela-
tion to Bishop Andrews was his universality. He had
broad visions of the work of the Church, and nothing
pertaining to its welfare was foreign to him. He
cheerfully accepted positions of responsibility in many
fields and with all of them he was profoundly sym-
pathetic. This universality of his sympathies was a
part of his personality. Breadth of appreciation and

2IO EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

of interest in human welfare characterized him to an
unusual degree. With his universality there was com-
bined concentration. While he was interested in all,
he gave special attention to each. He studied with
care every interest committed to him,' and the minutest
matters received his careful consideration. The close-
ness of his study of the affairs of the seminary was
manifest in all the deliberations of the Board of
Trustees. No detail was regarded as unimportant,
and for the time being that one interest was his great
concern. He exemplified the maxim, 'A whole man
to one thing at a time' in a remarkable degree.

"Another characteristic of Bishop Andrews was
development. He recognized the necessity of all
interests to grow, and he grew with them. I have in
another place referred to his own powers of growth
down to bis latest years. Those most closely associ-
ated with him recognized a constant growth in his
relations to great interests and in his capacities, and
he was ever fresh to meet immediate conditions. I
recall that on one occasion he was called upon suddenly
to deliver an address at the seminary in the place of
another who had been expected. He came without
hesitancy and exhibited a freshness of thought and a
freshness of adaptation to the immediate necessities
of the occasion which astonished all who were present.
It was the expression of youth and not of age,
although he had reached the age of eighty."

Bishop J. W. Hamilton wrote :

"He had so much of youth that he took part in the
discussions of the young people with as much relish
as if he expected to be elected to the General Confer-

TRIBUTES 211

ence because of his well-known opinion of 'paragraph
248.' His last paper which was printed in the Metho-
dist Review was a serious contribution to, and quite
comprehensive of, the whole subject of popular amuse-
ments. He had 'a talent for affairs,' and was just
as intensely interested in all the letters, science, and
politics as he was in the religion of the times.

"He 'grew up into things' from his youth. He
made a steady onward march from the years of his
boyhood to the end of his days. Fortunate as to his
family, his early privileges and his health, he has
given us a splendid example of 'the perseverance of
the saints.' He appears to have been successful in
everything; his methods, his habits, his circumstances
all contributed. He united with the Church when he
was ten years old, was licensed to preach at eighteen,
graduated from the university on his twenty-second
birthday, and entered the Conference the following
year. He was twice president of denominational
schools, eight years pastor of the large churches in
or near New York, twice a member of the General
Conference and for nearly thirty-six years in the
episcopal office. He was eminent as a teacher,
conspicuous as a preacher, and distinguished as a
Bishop. He was cautious and conservative and not
always in advance of the thought of the Church,
or even abreast in its forward movements ; his
opinions relative to the colored preachers and people
underwent several changes of garments during
his administration as general superintendent of
their churches. His oppositeness to the General Con-
ference when the women were admitted to its member-

212 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

ship, if not shifted, 'carried its oar loose,' that it might
be shifted 'hither or thither at pleasure,' according
as the measure was a failure or success. But he has
more than merely held his course since. His tolerant
views of the claims made by the 'liberal professors'
in the theological schools have put him in 'advance'
of a number of even the younger Bishops. And his
latest opinion of amusements is far and away in the
lead of the legislation of the Church."

Dr. John C. Ferguson, of Shanghai, wrote in Zion's
Herald :

"How sad the death of Bishop Andrews! And
yet how full of usefulness his life was ! His was the
path that shines brighter and brighter unto the per-
fect noonday. He had a larger variety of endearing
qualities than any minister whom I ever knew. I
saw him once at Nanking, when the two Chinese
coolies who were carrying his trunk on board a boat
dropped it into the water, soaking all his clothes and
some of his papers. After the accident I helped him
in rearranging his things and getting them dried;
but, during the whole process, I did not hear from
him one impatient word. He stayed with me, in my
house, for nearly a week with Mrs. Andrews, and
was a model of thoughtfulness to every one in the
household. I remember hearing Merry Ketcham say
that when the General Conference met in Cincinnati
and he was acting as a page at the door, opening and
closing it for those who went in and out. Bishop
Andrews, of all the delegates for whom he op>ened and
closed the door, was the only man that always turned
his head and said, 'Thank you.' These two incidents.

TRIBUTES 213

in the smaller affairs of life, show the real greatness
of the man. What a loss his departure is to our
Church!"

The Rev. Dr. Clarence O. Kimball, of Spokane,
wrote in Zion's Herald :

"It was my privilege to entertain in my church the
fall conference of the Bishops during the first week
in November. The advance correspondence had in-
formed us that Bishop Andrews would come in the
company of Bishop McDowell, and the two were
provided entertainment together. The senior Bishop
seemed so vigorous and alert that the precaution
appeared unnecessary. Only two weeks ago a large
cut of Bishop Andrews adorned the title-page of the
Pacific Christian Advocate, with this inscription :
'The best loved and most trusted man in Methodism.'
This high ascription of praise would have appeared
fully substantiated to all who could have observed
the reverence manifested toward him in all the com-
mittee meetings, and on the part of the entire Church
of this territory. His vision was so clear, his grasp
of facts so sure, his memory so accurate, his judgment
so sound, his statement so lucid that his word on any
question had tremendous weight. Add to this his
courtly manner, his gracious spirit, his deep piety,
and his consummate tactfulness, and you have the
ideal Bishop.

"He spoke at the public banquet tendered to the
Bishops at Spokane, and preached Sunday morning
at Sprague, a small town near the city, on the special
request of the pastor, whose wife is a niece of Bishop
Andrews. Sunday night Bishop McDowell was to

214 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

preach in my church, and upon leaving the hotel before
Bishop Andrews had arrived, he left word with the
clerk to tell the venerable Bishop where his colleagfue
had gone, but that he, Bishop Andrews, was not to
follow, because he would need rest and should retire
early. While we were singing the hymn just before
the sermon the benign face of the good old Bishop
appeared at the door, and the usher was seating him
there at his own request when I intervened and took
him to the platform, where he sat during Bishop
McDowell's great sermon on 'The Sower,' and then
led in choice words of memorable prayer. My last
definite memory of the Bishop is of his address follow-
ing the banquet at Portland. He occupied a place
among the guests on the platform. Dr. H. C. Jen-
nings, who sat by my side in the audience, remarked
to me : *Do you think that when 3'^ou are eighty-five
you will sit on the platform and speak like that?'
The next day, with Dr. E. S. Tipple as traveling com-
panion, he started on his return East, being excused
from further attendance on the committee meetings
in order that he might attend at Minneapolis a family
reunion of four surviving members of his father's
family, the youngest of whom is eighty-one."

Bishop E. R. Hendrix, of the Methodist Church,
South, wrote:

"For more than half of his long life of eighty-two
years I was intimately acquainted with Bishop E. G.
Andrews. Although he graduated at the Wesleyan
University in 1847, the year of my birth, yet twenty
years later, while he was on a visit to his alma mater,
he showed much interest in a graduate of the class

TRIBUTES 215

of 'dy, and when I was taking my theological course
at the Union Seminary in New York city I frequently
preached for him at Sands Street and Saint John's
in Brooklyn, and found that it was on his suggestion
that I filled a number of other Methodist pulpits in
that city. It was on his motion that I became assist-
ant pastor of the Pacific Street Methodist Church,
with Dr. Thomas Sewall, whose health began to fail
in 1868. With such kindred spirits as E. G. Andrews
and A. S. Hunt, a friendship was begun that grew
more intimate and sacred with the years. Few letters
passed between us, but whenever we met there were
heart-to-heart talks as of old, and as free and hearty
as if we were of one communion. Some of these in
the Bishop's room in New York, and others at the
great ecumenical and centennial gatherings of Metho-
dists, revealed the great ecclesiastical statesman no
less than did his episcopal address written when he
was seventy-five years of age, a notable state paper of
the highest order, from which I quoted in my address
to the British Wesleyan Conference in 1900. How
often we discussed together the future of Methodism
in America! And few minds saw more clearly what
wise statesmanship would be needed should there be
but one episcopal Methodism."

Dr. A. J. Lyman, pastor of the South Congrega-
tional Church of Brooklyn, wrote:

"Sagacity without intrusiveness, benignity without
effusiveness, fidelity without favoritism, and piety
without conceit — such as these were the qualities
which, existing in high degree, blended in a certain
excellent symmetry, and toned to a rhythm of manhood

2i6 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

at once genial and noble, made Bishop Andrews to be
the Bishop of us all — our Bishop Andrews — true
'Bishop/ friend and counselor, not only in his own
communion but also in the entire arena of our Amer-
ican Protestantism. The American Church has not
produced a wiser or dearer ecclesiastic, a more win-
some embodiment of catholic urbanity. And yet the
words, somehow, fail to render forth the spring and
charm of the spirit of this man, and are quite too
barren to compass the impression actually conveyed
by his open and sunny personality. To know him
was an education in the sentiment of confidence in
which honor and affection were equally mingled.
Almost before you knew it, certainly before he him-
self in his rare modesty had suspected it, you had
given him your best of reverent regard. One loved
to recognize in him Saint Paul's ancient and immortal
picture of the good Bishop, reproduced upon the true
scriptural lines, and yet mellowed and brightened and
set in a singular felicity of just adaptation to the
living scenery of the present age. In the result dwelt
a noble simplicity, together with a subtle and spiritual
distinction. You always felt it impossible to be
otherwise than happy after meeting Bishop Andrews.
"One trait, springing from the depths of his Chris-
tion manhood and brought to the most exquisite finish
by constant exercise, seemed to the present writer
supreme in its kind, irradiating his entire office and
ministry, namely, his intelligent and sympathetic
fellow feeling for and with the younger men of his
vocation. This grace of senior comradeship was in
him as far from patronage as it was from mere pro

TRIBUTES 217

fessional civility. Nor was it simply that good-
natured paternalism which sits among its 'boys' in
the undress of easy but commonplace companionship.
Bishop Andrews stood up to greet his young comrade,
as though the Great Captain's eye were on both, and
in answer every fiber and filament of true soul in the
young man stood up also to receive the good man's
greeting — a salutation which was an accolade, a
'God-speed' which was at once a benediction and a
charge."

President W. F. Warren, of Boston University,
writes :

"Who shall be found able rightly to characterize
Edward Gayer Andrews? Hardly one who loved
him as devotedly as I ; certainly no one who, knowing
him, could love him less. When or where I first met
him I do not remember. Wherever or whenever it
was, he at once seemed to me an old acquaintance
with whom I had enjoyed unnumbered years of good
fellowship. We were together in the General Con-
ference of 1872, but served on different committees.
It was thereafter ever a pleasure to me to have given
a vote toward the making of such a man a Bishop in
the Church of God.

"Bishop x\ndrews always impressed me as one of
the rarest of men in the variety and harmony of his
excellences. The services he rendered our Church
were many and great, but the greatest of them all
escapes grasp or formulation. It was that unconscious
and indefinable effluence of personality which has been
the inspiration of young men, the invigoration of
fellow workers, the harmonizing of colleagues, the

2i8 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

uplift and comfort of the total Church. How good
were his words and works! But

"Best seemed the thing he was. He joined
Each office of the social hour
To noble manners, as the flower
And native growth of noble mind ;

**Nor ever narrowness or spite
Or villain fancy fleeting by,
Drew in the expression of an eye,
Where God and Nature met in light."

We come to the close of this inadequate sketch.
We have not attempted a formal biography of the
Bishop but have sought merely to look at his service
in the different spheres of his ministry. We feel
that after we have said all we have not said anything.
The best part of Bishop Andrews was what he him-
self was, and this escapes description. Those who
stood closest to him realize this most and to all such
no word of tribute can be satisfactory. Our hope is
that the mere reference to the different spheres that
the Bishop filled may call to the friends of the Bishop
the memory of the Bishop himself.

We have said that the close of the Bishop's life,
coming as it did while he was still in full mental vigor.
was in a sense fitting and appropriate. We would
not by such expression, however, seek to disguise the
sense of loss which increases as the days go by.
Bishop Andrews has not yet been gone two years,
but already we are beginning to see that the loss to
the Church is greater than we could have imagined
at the moment of his death. Especially is this true

TRIBUTES ai9

in the case of the younger ministers, hundreds of
whom were born since the date of the Bishop's elec-
tion. To these the sense of desolation is most acute.
The older ministers valued Edward G. Andrews for
his brotherliness and companionship. The younger
men had come to look to him for light upon the ever-
changing situations which make their lot increasingly
bewildering. As we have already said, the Bishop
has not been gone two years, but hundreds of the
younger men exclaim now — not out of sudden impulse,
but out of a deepening conviction as to the value
of the leadership of Edward G. Andrews — "My father,
my father: the chariot of Israel and the horsemen
thereof!"

IV

PAPERS AND SERMONS

I

ADDRESS OF BISHOP ANDREWS AT
FUNERAL SERVICE OF PRESI-
DENT WILLIAM McKINLEY,
TUESDAY, SEPTEM-
BER 17, 1901

BLESSED be the God and Father of our Lord,
who of his abundant mercy hath begotten
us again unto a lively hope of the resur-
rection of Christ from the dead, to an inheritance
incorruptible, undefiled, and that fadeth not away,
reserved in hea\en for us who are now, by the power
of God through faith unto salvation, ready to be
revealed in the last time.

The services for the dead are fitly and almost of
necessity services of religion and of immortal hope.
In the presence of the shroud and the coffin and the
narrow home, questions concerning intellectual quality,
concerning public station, concerning great achieve-
ments, sink into comparative insignificance ; and
questions concerning character and man's relation
to the Lord and Giver of life, even the life eter-
nal, emerge to our view and impress themselves
upon us.

Character abides. We bring nothing into this
world; we can carry nothing out. We ourselves
depart with all the accumulations of tendency and

"3

224 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

habit and quality which the years have given to us.
We ask, therefore, even at the grave of the illustrious,
not altogether what great achievement they had per-
formed, and how they had commended themselves
to the memory and affection or respect of the world,
but chiefly of what sort they were; what the interior
nature of the man was ; what were his afSnities. Were
they with the good, the true, the noble? What was
his relation to the infinite Lord of the universe and
to the compassionate Saviour of mankind? What
was his fitness for that great hereafter to which he
has passed?

Such great questions come to us with moment, even
in the hour when we gather round the biers of those
whom we profoundly respect and eulogize and whom
we tenderly love. In the years to come the days and
the months that lie immediately before us will give
full utterance as to the high statesmanship and great
achievements of the illustrious man whom we mourn
to-day. We shall not touch them to-day. The nation
already has broken out in its grief and poured its
tears, and is still pouring them, over the loss of a
beloved man. It is well.

But we ask this morning of what sort this man is,
so that we may perhaps, knowing the moral and
spiritual life that is past, be able to shape the far-
withdrawing future. I think we must all concede that
nature and training and — reverently be it said — the
inspiration of the Almighty conspired to conform a
man admirable in his moral temper and aims. We
none of us can doubt, I think, that even by nature
he was eminently gifted. The kindly, calm, and

McKINLEY ADDRESS 225

equitable temperament, the kindly and generous heart,
the love of justice and right, and the tendency toward
faith and loyaky to unseen powers and authorities —
these things must have been with him from his child-
hood, from his infancy; but upon them supervened
the training for which he was always thankful, and
of which even this great nation from sea to sea con-
tinually has taken note.

It was a humble home in which he was born.
Narrow conditions were around him ; but faith in
God had lifted that lowly roof, according to the state-
ment of some great writer, up to the very heavens and
permitted its inmates to behold the things eternal,
immortal, and divine, and he came under that training.
It is a beautiful thing that to the end of his life he
bent reverently before that mother whose example
and teaching and prayer had so fashioned his mind
and all his aims. The school came but briefly, and
then came to him the Church, with a ministration
of power. He accepted the truth which it taught.
He believed in God and in Jesus Christ, through
whom God was revealed. He accepted the divine
law of the Scripture; he based his hope on Jesus
Christ, the appointed and only Redeemer of men ; and
the Church, beginning its operation upon his char-
acter at an early period of his life, continued even to
its close to mold him. He waited attentively upon
its ministrations. He gladly partook with his breth-
ren of the symbols of mysterious passion and redeem-
ing love of the Lord Jesus Christ. He was helpful
in all of those beneficences and activities; and from
the Church, to the close of his life, he received inspira-

226 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

tion that lifted him above much of the trouble and
weakness incident to our human nature, and, bless-
ings be to God, may we say, in the last and final hour
they enabled him confidently, tenderly to say, "It is
His will, not ours, that will be done."

Such influences gave to us William McKinley.
And what was he? A man of incorruptible personal
and political integrity. I suppose no one ever at-
tempted to approach him in the way of a bribe; and
we remember, with great felicitation at this time, for
such an example to ourselves, that when great finan-
cial difficulties and perils encompassed him, he deter-
mined to deliver all he possessed to his creditors,
that there should be no challenge of his perfect
honesty in the matter. A man of immaculate purity,
shall we say? No stain was upon his escutcheon; no
syllable of suspicion that I ever heard was whispered
against his character. He walked in perfect and
noble self-control.

Beyond that, this man had somehow wrought in
him — I suppose upon the foundations of a very happily
constructed nature — a great and generous love for
his fellow-men. He believed in men. He had him-
self been brought up among the common people. He
knew their labors, struggles, necessities. He loved
them; but I think beyond that it was to the Church
and its teachings concerning the Fatherhood of God
and universal brotherhood of man that he was in-
debted for that habit of kindness, for that generosity
of spirit, that was wrought into his very substance
and became him so that, though he was of all men
most courteous, no one ever supposed but that courtesy

McKINLEY ADDRESS 227

was from the heart. It was spontaneous, unaffected,
kindly, attractive, in a most eminent degree.

What he was in the narrower circle of those to
whom he was personally attached I think he was also
in the greatness of his comprehensive love toward the
race of which he was part. If any man had been lifted
up to take into his purview and desire to help all
classes and conditions of men, all nationalities besides
his own, it was this man. Shall I speak a word next
of that which I will hardly advert to — the tenderness
of that domestic love which has so often been com-
mented upon? I pass it with only that word. No
words can set forth fully the unfaltering kindness
and carefulness and upbearing love which belonged
to this great man.

He was a man who believed in right, who had a
profound conviction that the courses of this world
must be ordered in accordance with everlasting right-
eousness, or this world's highest point of good will
never be reached ; that no nation can expect success
in life except as it conform to the eternal love of the
infinite Lord, and pass itself in individual and col-
lective activity according to that divine will. It was
deeply ingrained in him that righteousness was the
perfection of any man and of any people.

Simplicity belonged to him. I need not dwell upon
it, and I close the statement of these qualities by say-
ing that underlying all and overreaching all and pen-
etrating all there was a profound loyalty toward the
great King of the universe, the Author of all good,
the eternal Hope of all that trust in him.

May I say further that it seemed to me that to

228 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

whatever we may attribute all the illustriousness of
this man, all the greatness of his achievements —
whatever of that we may attribute to his intellectual
character and quality, whatever of it we may attribute
to the patient and thorough study which he gave to
the various questions thrust upon him for attention,
for all his successes as a politician, as a statesman, as
a man of this great country, these successes were
largely due to the moral qualities of which I have
spoken? They drew to him the hearts of men every-
where, and particularly of those who best knew him.
They called to his side helpers in every exigency of
his career, so that when his future was at one time
likely to have been imperiled and utterly ruined by
his financial conditions, they who had resources, for
the sake of helping a man who had in him such qual-
ities, came to his side and put him on the highroad
of additional and larger successes.

His high qualities drew to him the good will of his
associates in political life in an eminent degree. They
believed in him, felt his kindness, confided in his
honesty and in his honor. His qualities even asso-
ciated with him in kindly relations those who were
his political opponents. They made it possible for
him to enter that land with which he, as one of the
soldiers of the Union, had been in some sort at war,
and to draw closer the tie that was to bind all the
parts in one firmer and indissoluble union. They
commanded the confidence of the great body of Con-
gress, so that they listened to his plans and accepted
kindly and hopefully and trustfully all his declara--
tions. His qualities gave him reputation not in this

McKINLEY ADDRESS 229

land alone but throughout the world, and made it
possible for him to minister in the style in which he
has within the last two or three years ministered to
the welfare and peace of humankind. It was out of
the profound depths of his moral and religious char-
acter that came the possibilities of that usefulness
which we are all glad to attribute to him.

And will such a man die? Is it possible that He
who created, redeemed, transformed, uplifted, illu-
mined such a man will permit him to fall into obliv-
ion? The instincts of morality are in all good men.
The divine word of the Scripture leaves us no room
for doubt. 'T," said One whom he trusted, "am the
resurrection, and the life : he that believeth in me,
though he were dead, yet shall he live : and whosoever
liveth and believeth in me shall never die."

Lost to us, but not to his God; lost from earth,
but entered heaven ; lost from these labors and toils
and perils, but entered into the everlasting peace and
ever-advancing progress. Blessed be God, who
gives us this hope in this hour of our calamity, and
enables us to triumph through Him who hath re-
deemed us.

If there is a personal immortality before him, let
us also rejoice that there is an immortality and
memory in the hearts of a large and ever-growing
people who, through the ages to come, the genera-
tions that are yet to be, will look back upon this life,
upon its nobility and purity and service to humanity,
and thank God for it. The years draw on when his
name shall be counted among the illustrious
of the earth. William of Orange is not dead. Crom-

230 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

well is not dead. Washington lives in the hearts and
lives of his countrymen. Lincoln, with his infinite
sorrow, lives to teach us and lead us on. And
McKinley shall summon all statesmen and all his
countrymen to purer living, nobler aims, sweeter
faith, and immortal blessedness.

II

BACCALAUREATE SERMON AT COR-
NELL COLLEGE, MOUNT VER-
NON, IOWA, JUNE 12, 1904

"Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice "
(John 18. 37)

NEVER more conspicuously than in these
words shone the lofty self-assertion of
the Man of Nazareth. He had often
before spoken great things of himself. "I will build
my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail
against it." "I am the resurrection and the life."
"Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden,
and I will give you rest." But now, standing at Pilate's
bar, denounced by the chiefs of his people, clamored
at by the mob, awaiting sentence and speedy execu-
tion, he falters not, retains and declares his sublime
self-confidence, claims supreme kingship, "Yes, I am
King, you speak truly, O Pilate. A King indeed. But
not a king over men's bodies and estates. ]My empire
is over human minds. It is a kingdom of the truth,
and for all who love the truth. The sensual, the am-
bitious, the proud, and the worldly may reject me,
but now and always hereafter, true souls will hear
my voice, will find in my words a more than human
utterance, will recognize in them the wisdom, the
authority, the tenderness of God." Such was the

claim when questioned by the Roman governor.

Z31

232 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

Eighteen centuries have passed, and the question
concerning Jesus still continues. But with modifica-
tions. Not now concerning an obscure member of
a despised race, rejected by his own nation, contemp-
tuously described by one of Pilate's successors as "one
Jesus who was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive."
To-day his "one Jesus" has a vast empire, has the
homage of uncounted millions, dictates civilization,
law, art, education, is, in fact, the chief name of
history. And further, in all civilized lands, men
understand that the real question is between Christ
and Christianity, on the one hand, and no revealed
religion, real or possible, on the other. All questions
concerning a personal God, and his care for man,
and concerning man's possibilities and hopes are in
this question concerning Jesus of Nazareth. Evi-
dently, the whole spirit, philosophy, law, and aim of
life are in debate.

Now, proportioned to the importance of the ques-
tion is the importance of a right method and spirit
of inquiry. If modern science is immeasurably in-
debted to the inductive method which Lord Bacon
emphasized and made dominant, how transcendently
necessary must a right method be in inquiries which
concern that which is highest, most enduring, most
central in being, namely God, man, righteousness, and
life eternal.

Two methods, distinct but not exclusive, present
themselves.

I. The method of the Clear Head. Natural in
an age of great intellectual activity and marvelous
scientific achievement, that the alert, trained, and

BACCALAUREATE SERMON 233

vigorous intellect should be deemed adequate of
itself to decide on the claims of Christ and Chris-
tianity. What has not the intellect ascertained, in
the heavens above us, among the masses and molecules
of the earth, in the midst of invisible power of the
universe! Shall it not, after such triumphs, be held
competent to pronounce on the questions whether
Jesus of Nazareth is the helpful Lord and the only-
Saviour of man? Let his claims be scrutinized with
scientific thoroughness — and one answer be given.

To which plausible proposal some objections may
be made :

1. This method, however valid for scholars and
men of business, is not valid for the masses of men
who have neither time nor books nor training sufficient
for such inquiries. Such men, if this is the only
method, must either have no opinions concerning
Christ, or must accept their opinions only upon the
authority of others.

2. It is probable, nay certain, that a redeeming
revelation from God to men will contain moral and
spiritual elements, will meet moral and spiritual needs,
will have moral and spiritual adaptations, for which
the speculative intellect has no calculus. We know
that alertness and vigor of intellect will not qualify
men to enjoy or criticise the "Transfiguration" or the
"Sistine Madonna," or to be moved by the impassioned
strains of "The Messiah," or to thrill at the varying
aspects of sky, or earth, or sea; nor can they, apart
from other qualities, compute the value of human
love, or heroism, or remorse, or the anguish of be-
reavement, or spiritual aspiration, or the beauty of

234 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

holiness. And so certain trained moral qualities, a
quickened conscience, a subtle susceptibility to the
pure and the good, an apprehension of the soul's pos-
sibilities and need may be indispensable to the recog-
nition of the reality and the value of a professed
revelation of God to man.

3. And if in the absence of practical righteousness,
with confirmed habits of unrighteousness, the truth
were to be ascertained, what would it profit ? He who
habitually disregarded the primal law written in every
heart, the law of conscience, will be likely to disobey
all subsequently ascertained laws. He would still be
likely to hold the truth in unrighteousness.

n. Over against the method of the Clear Head,
the New Testament sets forth the method of the Pure
Heart. This, it holds, is the supreme condition and
instrument of religious knowledge. The love of
truth, with obedience to it, is the way to the complete
truth. The intellect is not to be condemned and dis-
used, but rather to be honored and vigorously exer-
cised; but only when it is under the inspiration and
aid of a heart supremely set on righteousness are its
conclusions likely to be valid and authoritative. Light
duly used is the condition of more light. The pur-
pose to do the will of God leads to the truth and will
of God. As Wordsworth says,

But above all, the victory is most sure

To him who, seeking faith by virtue, strives

To yield entire submission to the law

Of conscience, Conscience reverend and obeyed

As God's most intimate presence in the soul

And his most perfect image in the w^orld.

BACCALAUREATE SERMON 235

Now, concerning this, several things may be said:

1. It is the rule affirmed by Holy Scripture. The
pure in heart see God. If the eye be single the whole
body is full of light. They who will to do his will
shall know whether the doctrine be of God. To them
that have (to purpose) it shall be given. They that
are of the truth hear his voice. Some cannot believe
because they seek the honor that comes from men
rather than the honor that comes from God. The
gospel is hid from those whom the god of the world
has blinded. Some have the evil heart of unbelief.

2. It is a just rule. Why should not increase of
religious knowledge be conditioned on the right use
of knowledge already possessed? The common judg-
ment of mankind approves this conclusion. The
penalties of negligence, inattention, wrong purpose,
partly fall on those guilty of them. To such men
misdirection and failure to reach the true goal is but
inevitable, and equitable. If men will not come to
the light, why should they not walk in darkness?

3. It is a rule founded in the constitution of the
human soul. We are ever to bear in view the unity
of the mind. Our books of psychology do indeed
analyze its faculties ; and its chief divisions, as intellect,
sensibility, and will, and of the subordinate divisions
of each, and of the relation and interaction of these.
And this often impresses the student with the thought
of a distinct entity underlying each form of mental
action. We easily forget that it is one simple individ-
ual being which acts and is acted upon in all the
various experiences of our lives. One side of our
soul life cannot be isolated from another. They inter-

2^6 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

act, they modify one another. Our judgments can-
not free themselves from the influence of our inchna-
tion, and of our prevaihng tone of mind and feeHng.
The poet tells us that

Trifles light as air
Are to the jealous confirmations strong
As proofs of holy writ,

and the common proverb runs,

A man convinced against his will
Is of the same opinion still.

Some bodily diseases affect the eye so that outline
and color of objects are not clearly discriminated. So
the fumes of a bad heart or of an unrecognized selfish-
ness may rise before the mental vision and forbid
right judgment. How else may we account for the
dreadful moral mis judgments which have shown
themselves in the defense of slavery, and of polygamy,
and in the hatred with which good men, the bene-
factors of the race, have often been followed? And
may not the argument against Christianity be a bad
heart? Men may not be willing to come to the light
lest their deeds be reproved. As one says, "Infidelity
may be due either to deficiency in evidence, or to a
state of mind or heart on which the clearest and
strongest science has no power."

But, further, all faculties, bodily, intellectual, and
spiritual, by use acquire keenness and vigor, and yield
delight. And must not a trained conscience, the
heightened walls of goodness and the strong affection
therefor that comes of use, the keen perception of
human need and of human possibilities, the increased

BACCALAUREATE SERMON 237

volition of the human soul and its worthiness of
redemption, make a man who has all these a different
judge of Christ and of Christianity from the man who
has them not? The judgments of the true heart may
be as just as those of the cold intellect.

4. And in religion this rule is of paramount im-
portance. Demonstrations belong only to the region
of pure mathematics. Their conclusions are irresist-
ible. In all other regions of inquiry we find our way
by balance of probabilities. So in questions of history,
of governmental policy, of philosophy. We cannot
avoid the weighing of contrary presumptions, but
we may reach conclusions that almost compel assent.

Now, in Christianity there is a range of unique and
impressive evidence — prophecy, miracle, the Jew in
history and in the twentieth century, the unapproach-
able character of Jesus, the exalted spirit of the Chris-
tian law which makes for the highest and deepest
necessities of the soul, the beauty, holiness, and power
of the Bible, the founding of Christianity and its
marvelous growth, and, finally, its transforming in-
fluence on the world. Singly these proofs are each
most convincing; combined they seem irresistible.

But is there nothing to be said on the other side?
Two presumptions at least confront these proofs.
They are, first, the magnitude of the universe, which
seems to make incredible the Christian's theory of
God's care for this earth among so many planets and
stars; and, second, the reign of lazv, a truth univer-
sally accepted as the postulate of all our sciences and
all our art — a truth which seems to brand Christianity
as an unreasonable, and, some would say, an impos-

238 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

sible irruption on the noble uniformities of nature.
Now, how a man will balance these antagonistic proba-
bilities will depend on whether he has been trained by
spiritual fidelities to discern magnitudes greater than
the stars, values higher than all the simply material
universe, a moral order more wide and inflexible than
physical law, necessities and possibilities to meet
which all grandeur and orders of the physical universe
may well, if need be, give place.

To this eminence of spiritual apprehension he has
come whom Christ describes as "of the truth." His
candid soul is discharged of the pride, conceit, and
self-will that avoids reproving light. His quickened
and strong conscience has made him cognizant of
a moral law, pure, far-reaching, inflexible, and eternal,
and of the divine Lawgiver and Judge. His purified
heart has brought him to a quick, delighted, and con-
trolling recognition of righteousness, purity, and love
wherein they are found. He loves them, he longs
for them, but with the love and longing has grown
a sense of distance and of unspeakable loss and need
thereby both for himself and for his fellow men, a
loss and a need so infinite in its measurement that the
hand of an infinite God may well be occupied with
its repair. And the good for which he longs, and
the love which he feels and fears, give immeasurable
value to the unseen soul which is the subject of such
experiences. Upon the vision of such an one dawns
the face of the Christ — the spotless life, the match-
less teaching, the grandeur of his self-humiliation
even to death, the revelation of the Father, the perfect
adaptation of his system and help to the needs of a

BACCALAUREATE SERMON 239

world of sin and sorrow. Can this seeing man doubt ?
What if the coming and hfe of Christ be the inter-
ruption of the usual course of nature? Shall not
nature wait on its Lord and obey his will while he
does a work transcending all nature? What if it is
a small planet which witnesses such a revelation?
Are not souls which are made for God and goodness
more than the suns which they see and number and
trace? All magnitudes, all glories, all lower orders,
pale into insignificance beside this revelation of the
divine that man may be lifted up to God. The trained
soul knows, accepts, adores its Lord, its Teacher, its
Brother, its Saviour.

And with the acceptance, a new series of evidences
arises — the peace conferred, the holiness imparted, the
victory achieved over temptation, the answers to
prayer, the conscious ennoblement of the entire nature,
the singing hope — is not all this "the witness within
himself" indisputable and ever-growing? On this
solid foundation rests the faith of most Christians.
They read few books. They can solve few difficulties.
They are puzzled by the questions of skeptics. But
their experience of the fitness of Christianity to meet
the supreme needs of the soul, to purify, comfort, and
ennoble it, is the warrant of its divine origin. The
soul and its Saviour testify each one of the other.

Ill

THE PASTOR AND HIS BIBLE'

THE founders of the Garrett Biblical Institute,
as its name indicates, intended that here
the Bible should be the central subject of
study and the norm of all instruction. They wished
that every teacher and every scholar should be, in
the broad sense in which Mr. Wesley used the phrase,
"a man of one book." It may be presumed, there-
fore, that you leave this school of the prophets for
the pulpit and the cure of souls enriched with much
biblical learning, and enriched yet more with purpose
and aptitude for a lifelong study of the inexhaustible
volume. If, then, this final hour of your under-
graduate life be given to thoughts concerning the
pastor and his Bible it may fitly link your years of
preparation with your coming ministry of the Holy
Word, a ministry which we trust may be prolonged,
faithful, rich in usefulness, and crowned at last with
the "Well done" of the Master.

Our discussion will touch only incidentally on the
great subjects now in debate among biblical scholars,
such as the Canon and its validity; Inspiration, its
nature and degrees; the Prophetic Element in Israel;
the Literary Character of the several books of the
"Divine Library" as indicating age, authorship, and

1 Address to the Graduating Class at Garrett Biblical Institute, May
9, 1906. Methodist Review, July- August, 1906

240

THE PASTOR AND HIS BIBLE 241

historic value; the Authority over faith and conduct
both of the Bible as a whole and of its several parts.
Such topics are too vast for our limited time, too
difficult of treatment by any but a master in sacred
science. Our task is a humbler one, namely, to note
the present condition of biblical opinion and study
among us, to ask for the genesis of this condition,
and to offer some practical suggestions related to it.
Even here difficulties await us, some inherent in the
subject itself, some arising from the divided opinions
of our scholars. But such difficulties do not excuse
us from study. They rather call us to increased dili-
gence, to greater candor and openness of soul, to a
more implicit dependence on the Spirit of Truth, and
to an inviolable fidelity to the truth as it shall be given
us to see it.

I. The Present Condition of Biblical Study among
Us. It is matter of common knowledge that within
the half century past a new view of the Bible and a
new method of Bible study have found place within
the Methodist Church, as within other churches. The
ministerial life of the present speaker covers the
whole period of this change. He was admitted to
the itinerant ministry in the year 1848. In that year
our New York book house issued The Patriarchal
Age, one of three octavo volumes which, under the
title. Sacred Annals, were at once placed in the Course
of Reading for young ministers. They were reprints
from England, the author being a scholarly Wesleyan
layman, George Smith of Camborne. The preface
gives definitely the standpoint of this historian. "The
volume of inspiration," he says, "is the only source

242 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

of information which we know to be unalloyed by
error and unadulterated by fiction," "It has been
our constant aim to admit, maintain, and illustrate
the truth of the sacred oracles." Accordingly, he
admits no question concerning any item of the
Scripture narrative. The chronology of Genesis (but
according to the Septuagint version), the longevity
of the early patriarchs, the universality of the Deluge,
the standing still of the sun and moon at the com-
mand of Joshua, the historic accuracy of the first
and the last chapters of the book of Job are all stoutly
argued. These items exemplify the book. In the
same year, 1848, and for many years before and after,
our text-book in theology was Watson's Institutes,
a work lucid, comprehensive, cogent in argument,
and occasionally touched with a noble eloquence. It
admirably set forth the cardinal truths of revelation,
but it also taught us that "the worlds," to use its
own words, were produced, in their form as well as
substance, instantly, out of nothing; that the creative
days of Genesis were natural days of twenty-four
hours each; that the best explanation of the work of
the fourth day is that on that day the annual revolu-
tion of the earth around the sun began ; and that to
the Noachian Deluge is due, in part the deposit, and
in part the disclosure of the fossiliferous rocks.
Probably if Mr. Watson were now living (the In-
stitutes were published in 1823) he would not think
that the sacred text enforced all these conclusions.
The books thus cited represent the general trend of
opinion among us fifty years ago. It was held that
an equal inspiration obtained throughout the Bible and

THE PASTOR AND HIS BIBLE 243

gave an equal authority to all its books and chapters.
All its statements were parts of the inerrant word of
God. The various topics differed, as all consented,
in relative importance, the incarnation and work of
Christ being doubtless the center and crown. But
all details, preceding and preparatory, in the patri-
archal history, in the wars of Israel, in the lives of
David, Solomon, Mordecai, and Jonah, were of some
importance and were given to us with absolute ac-
curacy. Together with a vivifying assurance as to
central things, there also came in those days to the
young theologue much perplexity as to things less
important. He must, if possible, reconcile Genesis
with geology (Darwin had not then published the
Origin of Species) ; must show that the apparent
discrepancies in Scripture were not real discrepancies ;
must harmonize the sacred narrative with secular
history and the monuments; must vindicate the un-
changeable holiness and impartial goodness of <jod
in the permission of slavery and polygamy among
the patriarchs, in the law of the blood-avenger, in the
command to exterminate the Canaanites, and in the
imprecatory psalms. How well he succeeded need
not here be said.

Since that time some of our brethren have jour-
neyed far. How far their books will show. One
holds that the early chapters of Genesis contain both
historic and unhistoric matter. Another holds that
at B.C. 4500 there existed in Babylonia a civiliza-
tion which presupposes, to use his own words, "mil-
lenniums of unrecorded time." Alas for the Usherian
Chronology ! One, whose book burns with a passion-

244 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

ate loyalty to Christ and his redemptive work, tells
us that "the Bible is not a final authority upon any
scientific question" ; that "even in matters not scien-
tific absolute inerrancy in the Bible is not required";
that the rib, the tree, the apple, the serpent of Genesis
2 and 3 are a picturesque way of talking concerning
"historic facts," and that Christian scholars, empha-
sizing strongly the word "Christian," "have four
regions of liberty in biblical discussion" : ( i ) the
Canon, (2) the Text, (3) the Literature, including
date, authorship (single or composite), style, quota-
tion, and (4) the Interpretation. If the liberty thus
conceded is a real liberty, both as to opinion and
speech, no one should ask more. Many hold that the
Pentateuch was not completed till after the Exile,
that Isaiah had two or more authors, and that the
book of Daniel is of late date and of doubtful authority.
And an eminent professor in one of our oldest uni-
versities writes : "There are historical inaccuracies in
the Bible as unquestionably as scientific errors. In
multitudes of cases various parts of the Bible contra-
dict each other. The Bible is not inerrant, nor is
there any reason why it should be." It would gratify
many if such opinions could be treated as eccentric
and of rare occurrence, but this the facts forbid. At
this present time the masters in theology, those whose
books are most widely read by our thoughtful men,
are by a vast preponderance the friends and advocates
of this freer treatment of the Bible. Even the con-
servative Dr. Orr claims only "a substantially Mosaic
origin of Pentateuchal law" with "minor modifica-
tions and adjustments" thereafter. And, further, it

THE PASTOR AND HIS BIBLE 245

is believed that the heads of our chief universities and
colleges, though selected for their present positions
without reference to this question, are, with few
exceptions, of the same tendency. No one is author-
ized to speak for them as to particular questions raised
in this great debate, but the drift among them to a
less rigorous view of the Bible is unmistakable. These
facts indicate that the number of our ministers and
laymen who sympathize with the new views is large,
and not likely soon to decrease.

As our statement of the earlier view of the Bible
closed with a reference to the perplexities to which it
subjected the young student, so we close this state-
ment of the new view by calling attention to two most
serious problems which it entails. First, how can the
Bible be maintained in reverence and authority among
the people if they are taught that in it historical and
scientific errors, contradictions, false morality, and
the crudities of superstitious ages are intermingled
with much that is highest and seems divine? And,
again, how shall the men of the new view themselves
go through the book, and, separating part from part,
say "This is human" and "That is divine"? How
far, and by what methods, these problems have been
solved we cannot indicate.

II, The Origin of the New Condition. To what
is this new attitude of many Christian scholars due?
What is its genesis? Many answer promptly and with
much assurance that it is closely related in origin and
effect to positive unbelief ; that it is simply a dilution,
with different degrees of attenuation, of the denial of
God and the spiritual world; that the causes which

246 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

have produced avowed skeptics have also produced
a race of scholars who would evacuate the Bible and
the history of Israel of every supernatural factor for
whose removal any plausible pretense can be found.
Doubtless there is some truth here. All men, in some
degree, respond to their age. Its spirit affects thought
and life. Especially is this true of an age so pro-
nounced as our own. It is an age of science, and the
large devotion of men to material nature diminishes
their relish and aptitude for spiritual thought, tends
to hide personality and efficient cause behind the
specious phrase ''the reign of law," and tends also to
find inexorable order everywhere and freedom
nowhere. It is an age of marvelous attainment and
achievement, and it thereby grows self-confident and
rashly adventurous. It is an age that has outgrown
many old and once honored opinions, and thereby
tends to Irreverence toward all the past. And, more
than in any previous age, scholars seem to be am-
bitious for recognition as subtle investigators, dis-
coverers of new truth, and broad-minded men. In
such an age men who do not like to retain God in
their knowledge — whose souls do not cry out for the
living God — easily become skeptics, and often of a
virulent sort. They resent, sometimes with contemp-
tuous pity, all allegations of supernatural interference,
whether by inspiration or prophecy, miracle or incar-
nation. For them there is no divine book; the Bible
is simply human literature. The infection of their
unbelief, we must admit, has reached many who would
strongly protest against being classed among skeptics.
The ideas of law, fixed order, and evolution so far

THE PASTOR AND HIS BIBLE 247

dominate many Christian scholars, and are so far re-
inforced by self-sufficiency and a pitiful ambition, that
these scholars reluctantly admit and continually min-
imize the divine factors in the Bible. The real miracles,
they think, are few; prophecy is rarely prophetic;
and inspiration is an almost negligible quantity. So
near do some who believe themselves Christians
approach to absolute denial of the faith.

But is this an adequate account of the present con-
dition of biblical study? Is skepticism, complete or
partial, the prevailing motive in the new reading of
the Bible? Two facts warn us from this conclusion.
Many scholars of the new type in Europe and America
are eminent in Christian faith, in Christian character,
and in Christian work. By word and life they declare
unhesitating loyalty to Jesus Christ — God manifest
in the flesh, the Prophet, Priest, and King of the
human race. And, further, this new intellectual
apprehension of the Bible synchronizes with the un-
paralleled growth of the Christian Church in numbers,
in varied benevolences, in missionary zeal, and in
general influence. Faith, and not doubt, is the law
of our time. Whence, then, the new phenomenon?
The answer must be this : the modern mind, in its
legitimate activity, explains the modern study of the
Bible. It does not, let it be noted, validate any one
of the modern opinions concerning biblical questions,
say, the canon of Scripture, the documentary hypoth-
esis, the date of Leviticus or Deuteronomy, the author-
ship of anonymous books, the relation of Israel to
neighboring nations, or the religious life of Israel
during the period of the Judges. Much less does it

248 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

justify the doctrinal vagaries of any biblical student.
But the modern mind does explain why these and all
other matters pertaining to the book are brought into
question, are subjected to the most searching scrutiny,
are treated with a freedom and an independence of
traditional opinions which seem to many irreverent,
and even touched with unbelief. Let the case be stated
thus : Given a century, the nineteenth, of prodigious
and diversified intellectual activity. Given to such a
century, as an inheritance from immediately preced-
ing centuries, certain notable factors in equipment
and tendency, of which four may here be named :

1. The new learning in ancient languages and
literature brought at the fall of the Byzantine empire
by its scholars into Western Europe; thereafter to
be matured and enlarged both by decipherment of the
hieroglyphs of the Nile and the cuneiform letters of
the Euphrates and by vast archaeological discoveries,
to be at length critically used in all problems of the
early world.

2. The recoil of men's minds from the puerile spec-
ulations of the scholastic philosophy to the world of
reality and fact ; a recoil into which men were startled
when Columbus, sailing westward, and Vasco da
Gama finding India by rounding the Cape, revealed,
as it were, a new earth, and when Copernicus and the
''Tuscan Artist" unveiled the mechanism of the skies
and gave a new heaven to human eyes.

3. The final establishment, under the leadership of
Bacon, of the Inductive Philosophy as the only true
method of inquiry, a method which, treating with
scant courtesy the unproved assumption and the a

THE PASTOR AND HIS BIBLE 249

priori theory, insists that truth in nature be estabHshed
by due observation and experiment and in history by
adequate testimony.

4. The Hberation of society, by the Reformation,
from ecclesiastical authority, and the assertion there-
with of the right and duty of every man to study for
himself the Word and will of God.

Given, again, a century which, thus equipped and
directed, has made almost all things new ; which, for
instance, has rewritten all classic and Oriental history,
has created new sciences and has so remade old ones
that they are as if new, has added new planets and
stellar systems to man's universe, has to new dis-
coveries added new inventions which indefinitely
multiply the race force, has, by the study of compar-
ative religion, attained new views of man's moral con-
stitution and moral history, has founded new govern-
ments and new social systems on the bases of justice
and equality, and has thus broken with the past that
it may attain a nobler future. The possibilities of
life seem indefinitely widening. Men are expectant.
They search with eager eyes every quarter for new
facts and new forces. They hold all traditional opinion
under question. They wait for light to break forth
in every field of thought.

To a century of such equipment, achievement and
tone the Bible was given from the hand of a reverent
past. It came with an immeasurable prestige. It
claimed, and had been accorded for centuries, sov-
ereign authority over faith and conduct. It was the
record of God's speech to man. It proposed to estab-
lish fellowship between the divine and the human.

250 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

It opened the endless vistas of immortality. It
was the Book of books. But, with this open Bible,
the Protestant Churches came to hold two doctrines
which necessarily restricted the range of biblical
study. The one was that of a completed, perfect, and
authorized canon ; a canon to which nothing could be
added, from which nothing could be removed. The
other was that of a plenary and inerrant inspiration
pervading with an equal authority every part of every
included book. Under these conditions the work of
the student was necessarily simple, though twofold:
he must find the true text, then interpret it. But he
could admit no question as to the truth of any state-
ment thus found and interpreted, whether the statement
was related to history, science, ethics, or theology.
Over all was the broad aegis of canonicity and inspira-
tion. "Thus far and no farther" was a headline for
every page. Was it not inevitable that in such a
century as we have described the surges of thought
would at length beat vehemently against these limiting
barriers? Men would come to ask. Who established
the canon, and by what authority? Who framed,
and on what authority, a doctrine of inspiration which
validates as true every statement from "In the begin-
ning" of Genesis to the "Amen" which ends the
Revelation? Such questions were sure to rise, and
with them, soon or late, questions on every item related
to the final decision. All alleged textual discrepancies
and larger disharmonies must be examined. Ancient
histories, legends, and monuments must be compared
with the biblical narratives. The literary character
of the books must be discriminated for indications of

THE PASTOR AND HIS BIBLE 251

date, authorship, and value, just as the student of
EngHsh letters notes the difference between the
English of the Canterbury Tales and that of Paradise
Lost. The ethical worth of ancient command, psalm,
and deed must be weighed. The testimony of the
fathers must be considered. These and many other
topics demand attention when the alternative question
is asked, "Is the Bible equally authoritative through-
out and in all its statements, or, on the other hand, is
it a veritable depository of divine truth, law, and
grace, yet preserved for us with human imperfections
of knowledge, feeling, and language?*' A\'hat issue
shall come on these main questions, or on any of the
subordinate ones, we do not here consider. Will the
old opinions be confirmed or will new ones be estab-
lished? This question we leave unanswered. But
again we say that the rise of these questions was
inevitable. The opinions accepted for generations
must show their credentials. And the study of these
credentials is right, is obligatory, is the only way open
before men who love the truth.

III. Practical Suggestions Related to the New Con-
ditions. In these new conditions what should be the
attitude of the Christian pastor? In what spirit and
with what directive principles shall he study and use
his Bible? He cannot, if he would, escape the new
conditions. He belongs to his times. He can-
not ignore the great debate. Its voices, unheard
by the fathers, disturb his soul. Men near him, of
his own household, assail some cherished articles
of his traditional faith. At times the very founda-
tions seem in peril. How shall he bear himself

252 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

in this crisis? A few suggestions only are here
possible.

I. The pastor is now, as heretofore, entitled to hold
and assert an unshaken faith in the Christian system,
in its divine origin and its ultimate triumph. It has
survived many severe ordeals, it will survive this.
The foundation standeth sure. The nations are for-
ever given as an inheritance to Jesus Christ. There
will be individual damage and loss through the new
discussions. Many who in thought have inseparably
linked the divine revelation with an infallible book
will be tempted to abandon both. This is an old story
in human life. Every transition from an inherited
faith meets such peril. The infidelity of France, Italy,
and Japan is in evidence. But, though the faithful
and wise pastor will be grieved unutterably by the
havoc thus wrought, he will neither hold it to be a
valid test of the New Study nor any prophecy of the
ultimate failure of Christianity. We must recur to
a fundamental principle. Any inevitable movement
of the human understanding must be held as a part
of the divine order for man and an element of human
progress. Its contribution to progress may be the
direct gift of new truth ; it may be the overthrow of
ancient errors by new emphasis on existing truths or
their inevitable corollaries ; it may be chiefly a stimulus
to new inquiries which shall confirm, purify, and
exalt accepted views. Of such a movement the
present biblical study seems unquestionably a part.
However long delayed, it was sure at length to arrive.
The Christian mind, partaking the eager and inquis-
itive spirit of the age, would confront — as in science,

THE PASTOR AND HIS BIBLE 253

history, government, and social order, so in religion
— every traditional opinion and institution and demand
the reason for its existence. This is God's order
writ large in present intellectual conditions. It must,
therefore, be wholesome in its final outcome whether
it confirm the old or establish the new. Meantime the
process will be attended by innumerable blunders born
of manifold human infirmities, such as haste, self-
conceit, idiosyncrasies, narrowness, ambition, and un-
belief. Our Brooklyn Beecher once said that men
reach the truth as our ferryboats reach their docks;
not by direct course but by bumping, now on this side
and now on that, against the deep-driven piles which
guard the approach. Let it be noted that when once
alarming views are promulgated there is only one
right way of dealing with them. Not avoidance, not
peremptory denial, not hot denunciation will serve;
only larger learning, surer logic, deeper insight.
When, in 1835, Strauss in his Das Leben Jesu deliv-
ered what McClintock characterized as "the heaviest
blow which infidelity ever struck against Christianity,"
many alarmed theologians advised the Prussian gov-
ernment to suppress the book. "No," said the great
Neander. "Let it be met not by authority, but by
argument." His counsel prevailed, with the result
from that time of a wider and more profound study
of the Divine Life on Earth — of which Neander's
own Life of Christ was the unsurpassed product —
the overthrow of the mythical theory, and the steady
growth of evangelical views. The skeptic proved in
the end to be the servant of the truth. Why doubt
the issue of present discussions? Fear is not always

254 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

a true prophet. Let the past instruct us. The Church
at Jerusalem heard with alarm that Peter of the keys
had opened the door of faith to Cornelius, the Roman
centurion, and that Paul had absolved the Gentile
Church from the rites of the law ; but in this freedom
of the apostles was the salvation of the nations. The
Roman Christians were dismayed when on the de-
clivity of the northern mountains hung the black
cloud of barbarism threatening to engulf in a common
ruin the ancient civilization and the new faith; but
the new race was the gift of a new vigor and ulti-
mately of a larger liberty to the Church. There were
pious souls in the Roman communion who shrieked in
alarm when Luther nailed his ninety-five theses to the
church door at Wittenberg — but that act of the
reformer was the renaissance of Christianity. The
Protestant doctors of Holland abhorred Arminius as
a destroyer of the faith ; but the heretic uttered a
sentence of death, now well-nigh executed, upon an
awful distortion of Christianity which made the All-
Father unjust, cruel, and insincere. The Church no
longer insists that Galileo shall recant; no longer
executes witches because of certain texts in Exodus
and First Samuel; no longer justifies slavery by the
example of the patriarchs, or the divine right of kings
by Paul's declaration that "the powers that be are
ordained of God" ; no longer holds theories of the
atonement once highly accredited; no longer rejects
geologic truth, nor even some forms of the doctrine
of evolution. Evidently, theology, whether exegetical,
doctrinal, or ethical, is a progressive science. But the
fundamentals are not deserted nor obscured. God is

THE PASTOR AND HIS BIBLE 255

in Christ reconciling the world unto himself. And
it may be that Neander speaks truly when he says:
"But of this I am certain : that the fall of the old form
of the doctrine of inspiration, and, indeed, of many
other doctrinal prejudices, will not only not involve
the fall of the essence of the gospel but will cause it
no detriment whatever; . . . that from such a
struggle a new theology, purified and renovated in
the spirit of the gospel, must arise; . , . and
neither a stubborn adherence to antiquity nor a pro-
fane appetite for novelty can hinder this work of the
Lord which is now preparing."

2. As the Christian pastor is entitled tO' an un-
swerving faith in Christianity, so he is entitled to an
undiminished veneration for the Book which is its
record. Nothing has been established by modern
study which diminishes the essential glory of the
Bible. There are spots, it is said, on the face of the
sun. It is not therefore passing into permanent and
disastrous eclipse; it still cheers and fructifies the
earth. It has yet unmeasured treasures of heat and
light. And so of the Bible. If, as some think, the
history of Israel, as the history of all other great
nations, begins in a region of mist and legend which
early Genesis reports, yet with many a foregleam of
the coming glory, does this destroy faith in Abraham
and Moses, David and Nehemiah, ministers of an
incalculable good to their own and all after times? If
the Genesis account of the marriage of the sons of
God with the daughters of men puzzles us, have there-
fore the twenty-third and the thirty-fourth and the one
hundred and third Psalms lost their truth and power?

256 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

There is a criticism which would blot out the sun; a
criticism predetermined in its course by positive dis-
belief of spiritual verities and prosecuted both with
reckless disregard of historic facts and forces and with
astounding mutilations of the sacred text. It finds
that Abraham and Moses are myths, that Bible proph-
ecies are little, if at all, above Delphic oracles, that
the song over Bethlehem, the spotless life of the Man
of Nazareth, his works, his atoning cross, and the
vacant tomb are fond and foolish conceits, and that
Paul was a false witness, and a weak and simply
rabbinical reasoner. But such rationalistic unbelief
has no place among us. The Bible with us has been,
is, and will be as the ark of the covenant, which no
irreverent hand may touch. What it is and what it
does insures its position. Its contents are transcend-
ent and unapproachable. Not dwelling now upon that
progressive disclosure of the one all-perfect God,
which separates the Old Testament by the whole orb
from all other sacred books of antiquity, we come to
that hour when the Dayspring from on high visited
the earth. Can any other book tell us of the God-
incarnate, of the divine life among men and for men,
and of the perfect unfolding in the Son of Mary of
the holiness and truth, of the tenderness, patience and
self-sacrifice — of the large redemptive purpose and
power — of the Father of men ? Is there any literature
comparable to this story of august advent to lowliest
conditions: of the long, obedient silence in the Gal-
ilsean home followed by the wonderful inauguration
to Messianic service at the waters of Jordan; of
inflexible personal holiness allied with compassion for

THE PASTOR AND HIS BIBLE 257

sinful men ; of loftiest claims and works attended by
unparalleled meekness and humility; of universal
philanthropy coupled with an ardent and weeping
patriotism ; of sublimest teachings in simplest forms
of speech; of the death of the life-giver; of a grave
that could not hold its tenant; of foundations thus
laid for ascent to eternal dominion and glory that a
world might be transformed? Light, love, and life
eternal have here, and nowhere else, come to earth.
And the Bible is also the history, in part, of man's
response to the divine overture, of the struggle toward
the Infinite Father of souls beset with evil — a struggle
now triumphant, and singing, "The Lord is my por-
tion, my shield, my sun, my salvation," now wailing,
in consciousness of painful but not hopeless defeat,
"Have mercy upon me, O God; according to thy
loving-kindness blot out mine iniquities," but at last
attaining complete issue in those who, joined to the
risen Saviour, can exclaim, "Thanks be to God who
giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ."
Proportioned to the grandeur of its contents has been
the beneficent influence of the Bible upon human life.
This influence has been attained, and it will continue,
not by reason of minute accuracy as to the years of
Methuselah, or the number of armed men in the
Exodus, or the genealogical tables of the Old or the
New Testament. In things immeasurably deeper,
higher, broader than these is the hiding of its
power. In its disclosure of God, in its holy law, in
its provision of redemption for enslaved and con-
demned souls, in its doctrine of brotherhood and of
immortality, lies its victorious strength — and there

258 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

it will remain, whatever the issue of the present
study.

But time forbids any attempt now to set forth its
work in the world. Let all be summed up in the words
of Wendell Phillips : "The answer to the Shaster is
India; the answer to Confucianism is China; the
answer to the Koran is Turkey; the answer to the
Bible is the Christian civilization of Protestant Europe
and America."

3. A due sense of the limitations of the human mind
is imperative in biblical study. Our age, as we have
already noted, is not given to intellectual humility.
Great attainments and achievements engender self-
conceit and contempt for the past. "The Dark Ages"
is a common phrase among us. No one denies that
we inherit some values from the scholars, ecclesiastics,
and statesmen of those times. But our praise of them
is faint, and not without a subtone of commiseration
for their intellectual poverty. The rude hand-press
of Guttenberg, on the one hand, and on the other the
complex and powerful constructions which give us
each morning the tidings of the round world, seem
the proper symbols of that age and this. Nowhere
more than in biblical study does this self -appreciation
appear. Passing by those who in the name of law
eject from the Bible and from life all supernatural
elements, we take note of the almost sublime assur-
ance with which many of a different type proceed at
will to dissect, amend, transpose, enlarge, diminish,
and distribute the sacred text. If these would but
agree among themselves we might believe. But by
some occult impulse each weather vane contradicts

THE PASTOR AND HIS BIBLE 259

its fellows and changes its own direction with each
passing hour. These variations and eccentricities of
opinion are as wonderful as the transformations of
the kaleidoscope. Scholars remember, though the
world has already forgotten, how recently there was
a polychrome Bible, sometimes irreverently styled the
rainbow Bible. It never came to completion, being
laughed out of being when half done. It was a thing
to wonder at. By all the colors of the spectrum it in-
dicated what portions of the text were due to Elohist^
Elohist^, Elohist^, to Jahvist^ and Jahvist^, to this
redactor and that. Chapter, verse, and phrase within
verse were thus separated and distinguished. Joseph's
coat could not compare with it. It was philology run
mad. Men assumed to have such knowledge of the
Old Testament Hebrew that, though no contemporary
literature in that language has survived to aid their
investigations, they could yet confidently assign each
passage in the Pentateuch to its proper date along
the line of several centuries. Dr. Emil Reich's book,
The Failure of the Higher Criticism, is a keen,
caustic, and, we must add, amusing expose of this
folly. Dr. Reich is no conservative. He speaks freely
of what he calls legends found in early Genesis. He
nowhere claims inerrancy for the Bible. He finds,
indeed, a new origin for Israel. But he wars on the
philologists — such ones as banish Abraham and Moses
from Hebrew history. He does not believe in phil-
ology; be believes in geo-politics. His onslaught is
irresistible, but also irresistibly humorous, for Greek
meets Greek. The lofty self-confidence of the phil-
ologist is matched and even surpassed by the over-

26o EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

weening vanity and absolute certainty of his critic.
Which of them knows that he knows the most, who
can tell ? We can only wonder, admire, and smile.

An earlier instance of haste and overconfidence in
Bible study is Luther's well-known rejection of the
Epistle of James as an epistle of straw. It does not
mention the atonement, nor righteousness by faith;
let it, therefore, be cast out, said the great reformer.
But men have now come to see that Paul and James
are not antagonistic; that they differ chiefly in point
of view ; that the one is speaking of the source of life,
even Christ received by faith, the other of the proof
of life, even obedience to the law ; that, both standing
before some verdurous and fruitful tree, one of them
says, "That tree lives; for mark how it sends down
its roots and rootlets into the dark, damp earth and
draws thence vital supplies," and the other says, "That
tree lives; for see you not bud and blossom, and leaf
and golden fruit?" And thus what Luther rejected
we have learned to accept as part of the orb of
Christian truth.

The lesson, then, is this: Let the Bible student be
slow to yield opinions held by generations of Christian
scholars; let him insist on adequate proofs. "Make
haste slowly" is for him, as for others, a safe motto.
But let him not refuse new light if it shall come, nor
anchor himself to an immovable past. We repeat the
good words of Neander: "An obstinate adherence to
antiquity; a profane appetite for novelty." Let both
be avoided.

4. A fourth condition of wise Bible study is a
living faith in essential Christian verities, a faith in

THE PASTOR AND HIS BIBLE 261

which all faculties of the soul, intellect, conscience,
heart, and will concur, and which therefore delivers
the whole man continuously and gladly over to the
law and love of God. These central verities need not
be here recited. From the beginning they have been
the recognized basis of the Church. They are in
every great creed of Christendom. At times they
have been overlaid and obscured by false rite, organi-
zation, dogma; but they have, nevertheless, remained
unquestioned and constructive in every Christian com-
munion. And, if we except the avowed antisuper-
naturalists, we may say that they are to-day held and
affirmed by a vast majority of Bible students.
Whether these students adhere to the traditional
views, or in varying degrees accept the new, they
stand on these impregnable foundations. Differing
on many questions, they agree that in the Bible — the
work of many authors, separated in many cases from
one another by centuries of vast historic change, and
separated still more by inward qualities and experi-
ences— that in this book there, nevertheless, appear,
and with ever-increasing clearness, these doctrines
concerning God and his relation to man, culminating
at length in his transcendent manifestation in Jesus
Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord and Saviour.
Many of these students say that they find defects and
errors in the book; but they say, further, that as no
one doubts the main facts in the life of Washington
because of the blunders and disagreements of his
biographers, so no one may doubt that in these im-
perfect books the glory of God in the face of Jesus
Christ shines forth with indisputable splendor.

262 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

The Bible, indeed, shines by its own light. It
attests itself. "It is an ultimate authority for men,"
says Professor Curtis, "because it appeals to them
with spiritual cogency." The divine transmitter and
the human receiver are keyed together, notwithstand-
ing man's imperfections. The honest and earnest
soul hears in the Bible the word of God; the sinful
soul finds in it pardon and renewal; the needy soul
finds in it adequate relief; the dying soul finds in it
the resurrection and immortal hope.

The late eminent Dr. Dale, of Birmingham, Eng-
land, in his book. The Living Christ and the Four
Gospels, narrates an interview between himself and a
Japanese Christian who came to him with letters of
high commendation, and who soon evinced himself
an intelligent, broad, and masterful man. Much con-
versation ensued. The silent night had fallen about
them when Dr. Dale, profoundly interested in his
visitor, and referring to himself as a Christian by
inheritance and to his guest as one of a race separated
by the darkness of eighteen heathen centuries from
the glory of the incarnate Lord, asked him how he
became a Christian. The answer was the biography
of a rare soul. A Confucian by birth and training,
but earnest and inquiring, troubled at length by
doubt whether the heaven of Confucius meant a blind
fate or a living and supreme person with whom life
and destiny were interlinked, filled with unrest and
anxiety which learned men of his own faith could not
allay, for years he was groping in fear and hope after
a God unknown. Then a Chinese New Testament
was, given him, with the remark that he would be

THE PASTOR AND HIS BIBLE 263

charmed with its Hterary beauty. He did not know
who were its authors, whether the names which its
books bore were genuine, when or where they wrote,
or what were their claims or their credentials. He
read with interest, but unmoved, until he came to the
thirteenth chapter of First Corinthians. He was
startled. What morality is this! Whence came it?
He turned back to the Gospel which bore the name
of John — an unknown, unaccredited man. He read,
and still read, until, as at the transfiguration, the Son
of Mary shone in the glory of the eternal Father.
The humble, docile, seeking soul saw its God — and
knew him.

That these self-luminous verities should become the
dominant convictions, the determining law of thought,
feeling, and will, the soul of the human soul, need
not here be argued on general grounds. That obliga-
tion is obvious. But the relation of this vital faith
to sane and safe Bible study may be briefly discussed.

First. In this practical surrender to the truth the
truth itself becomes more luminous and sure. Its
adaptation to all man's highest needs gains for it the
highest of proofs, namely, experience. Its fitness to
unfold all faculties declares that the Father of souls
and the Author of Christianity are one. The key fits
the lock. Established in this most interior and con-
vincing assurance, the student of the Bible remains
calm, clear-eyed, open of mind, and courageous when
around him sound noisy speculations in philosophy,
science, philology, comparative religion, ancient his-
tory, or in whatever other studies some may hope and
some may fear to find damage for the Christian faith.

264 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

He knows whom he hath beHeved. He is sure that
no weapon against his Lord will prosper. Because
of this faith in Him who guides into the truth he will
be cheerfully patient in inquiry — not hasting, not rest-
ing— willing to accept light if it be light and not an
ignis fatttus. He accepts changes in incidentals if
enforced by sound reason, yet remains immovably
confident in the God and Saviour revealed in the Bible.
His soul is his teacher.

But, secondly, this personal, vital faith furnishes
not only a right temper, but also a needful criterion
in Bible study. A recent writer has said that both
in the Old Testament and in the New are found
elements which are not consonant with the central
and constitutive truths of Christianity, and are,
therefore, to be rejected. There is base alloy,
he holds, in the books which follow the Gospels
as well as in those which precede. If this is
possibly true, or because it is alleged to be true, the
Bible student must have some rule by which to assess
the value of every part of these writings from Genesis
to Revelation. That rule and criterion is the Chris-
tian soul ; the Christian faith incorporate with the
whole moral and spiritual nature, the domination of
the whole man, his tendencies, tastes, affections, aspira-
tions, by Christian elements. Let it be noted that
such an assessment of Bible values is inevitable. All
students practice it, though often unconsciously.
Some who sing with a cheerful consciousness of their
own orthodoxy.

Faith of our Fathers ! Holy Faith !
We will be true to thee till death.

THE PASTOR AND HIS BIBLE 265

would probably be surprised at a clear view of
their own practical discriminations in the Scrip-
tures.

The reformers cast out the Apocrypha, which Rome
received. Martin Luther rejected the Epistle of James.
Wesley rejected some psalms from The Sunday
Service as not fit for public use. Adam Clark treated
the Song of Solomon as indelicate, lascivious, and
unspiritual. We go through the book of Job with
continued discrimination even among the utterances
of the patriarch himself. To many the Revelation of
Saint John the Divine is in its central parts an insolu-
ble mystery. Ecclesiastes, Jonah, and other books
are weighed and found wanting by many orthodox
scholars.

How, then, shall the pastor be fitted for the dis-
cussions that still await him? The answer is, by
knowing by heart the central facts, forces, and aims
of the Scripture. The genius of Christianity must
possess, inspire, illumine him. Let him have the mind
of Christ, his faith in the Father, his comprehensive
and self-sacrificing love, his loyalty to the eternal
righteousness, his hatred of sin and yet his patience
toward the sinner, and he cannot go far astray. He
will still err both by overvaluation and undervalua-
tion; he is human. But he will appropriate from
every book of the divine volume that which will
nourish the soul, will often find manna in the desert,
will learn how to estimate the imperfect good of the
early ages, and will wonder at and admire more and
more the progressive unveiling of the heavenly Father
to his human children.

266 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

5. How far may the pastor use his pulpit in the
discussion of questions of bibhcal criticism?

Obviously no definite and inflexible rule obtains.
And this is true whether the pastor favors the old
views or the new. Distinctive factors mark each
pastor and each congregation. Has the pastor
adequate learning? Has he a sound judgment as to
the place and proportionate value of particular
truths? Has he due humility and freedom from dog-
matism? Is he capable of clear, conciliatory, and
convincing speech? And, on the other hand, do
faulty opinions have place, and in what degree, in
the congregation? Are they seriously faulty? Do
they notably obstruct the gospel? Are they held
aggressively or in quietness? Evidently, the wisdom
of critical discussion, whether for or against the newer
view, depends on the man and the occasion. Some-
times, yet rarely, aggressive courage is wisdom. It
is said that about 1830 Charles G. Finney, the notable
evangelist, came on his mission to Rochester, then
a rising city of western New York. He found that
with few exceptions its leading professional and busi-
ness men and its people generally were avowed infidels.
They would give no hearing to his usual topics. He
formed a new plan of campaign. He ceased warning
and appeal, and went to argument on fundamental
things — to formal and protracted proofs of Chris-
tianity, and to like refutation of infidelity. Trained
as a lawyer, he used a lawyer's methods. With his
peculiarly incisive speech and relentless logic he
challenged their attention. They must needs listen.
He established his position — they could not resist the

THE PASTOR AND HIS BIBLE 267

force with which he spoke. A revival swept the city
and left on it and the region around an impress which
survived the century. The adequate man and the
exigent hour had met.

A few preachers only can wield such weapons and
effect such results. Others should not attempt it.
Let it be noted, in the first place, that a sentence may
suggest a doubt which pages cannot resolve. An
error brought to notice only that it may be refuted
will often long outlive the refutation. Project upon
the congregation a denial of some statement found
in the Bible : some hearers will infer the falsity of the
whole book. Project on the congregation an unquali-
fied affirmation of every statement, historical or
scientific or moral, of the Bible ; many hearers will
repudiate a book which seems to them to war on
reason and the moral sense. If need be, the state-
ments must be made whatever the hazard — but the
impending danger imposes extreme caution. One of
our most noted preachers, now doubtless living in
the light supernal, thought it wise to give his people
a series of sermons in disproof of atheism. Two of
his hearers met in the vestibule at the close of the
series. "What did you think of it?" said one to the
other. The significant answer came : "O, I still believe
there is a God." It is easy to disturb faith by un-
necessary proofs of evident truth and by unnecessary
emphasis on subordinate truth.

Let it be further noted that men live the religious
life, not by faith in the minutiae of the Scripture,
either of the Old or the New Testament, but by faith
in God, the Father Almighty, Maker, Upholder, and

268 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

Lord of the universe; in Jesus Christ, his only Son,
in whom dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily,
who died, the just for the unjust, and who lives for-
ever to give the eternal life; in the Holy Ghost, by
whose abiding indwelling men are re-created in the
image of God; in the unchanging obligation of the
holy law which is summed up in Love; and in the
indissoluble union of character and destiny. These
truths, when believed, make men free in the liberty
of the sons of God. However men may differ as to
the interpretation and the truth of incidental and
subordinate parts of Scripture, if they believe these,
they are all in Christ Jesus. These, therefore, with
their manifold illustrations and applications, are the
chief, I might almost say the only proper, topics of the
pulpit.

And let it be again noted that these central truths
have for the pulpit this advantage, that they are to a
great degree self-luminous. They commend them-
selves to man's highest reason, to his moral con-
stitution, to his noblest aspirations, to the deepest
necessities of his soul. They meet him at the
topmost of his being. Preach God in his natural and
especially in his moral perfections, and the soul
assents, adores, submits, and trusts. Preach the
supreme law of love, and the moral sense acknowl-
edges its sovereignty, its completeness, its adaptation
to man's life. Preach the immanent Spirit of Holi-
ness, and the moral incompetency and the despair of
the natural man is replaced by a divine energy of
goodness. Preach the irrevocable connection between
goodness and peace, sin and woe, and man's present

THE PASTOR AND HIS BIBLE 269

experience responds in affirmation. Preach the God-
man, the ineffably Highest stooping to become the
lowest, a man, a servant, a victim, to redeem a lost
race — how it touches, melts, uplifts, thrills with im-
mortal hope! Without this there is no gospel, and
preaching is vain.

He who did most shall bear most; the strongest shall stand

the most weak.
'Tis the weakness in strength that I cry for ! My flesh that

I seek
In the Godhead ! I seek and I find it. O Saul, it shall be
A Face like my face that receives thee ; a Man like to me
Thou shalt love and be loved by forever; a Hand like this

hand
Shall throw open the gates of new life to thee ! See the

Christ stand !

Brethren of the graduating class, to this ministry
I commend you. There is no work purer, nobler,
more divine. If the things invisible are the real and
enduring realities, and if the fashion of this world
is in seeming and soon passes away, how eminent the
calling of him who would open blind eyes and lift up
sordid souls to the eternal good ! He will not escape
hardship. There will be indifference, criticism,
reproach. There will be heart-breaking failures,
often scant success, and a consciousness of insuf-
ficiency. There may be poverty like that of the
Master and his servant Paul. There may be persecu-
tion, and even the martyr's death. But with one
heart we this day pray that none of these things may
move you — and that you may fulfill the ministry
which you have received of the Lord Jesus to testify
the gospel of the grace of God.

IV

THE NEW TESTAMENT METHOD
OF LAW

SAINT PAUL represents the law of Moses as
"of the letter," as "written with ink," as
"written and engraven in stones." He thus
notes an obvious feature of this ancient legislation.
It was chiefly a system of rules, and not of principles.
It was preeminently outward, dealing more with
particular actions than with spiritual qualities and
motives. It was copious, minute, exact. It hedged
in the whole life of the Hebrew with injunction and
restriction. It had, for example, regulations for
house, dress, food, ablution, sanitation ; for marriage,
dower, divorce, adoption, inheritance, burial ; for
trade, agriculture, loans, usury, land-redemption,
servitude, enfranchisement. It forbade many specified
acts without affixing penalties, and to many crimes
it denounced various and often severe punishments.
And it had provisions, constitutional in their nature,
for the distribution of jurisdiction both quasi-legis-
lative and judicial. In the field of religious ceremony
the law became even more explicit and particular.
One exclusive seat of national worship was to be
selected. It were wearisome to recall the exact pre-
scriptions given for the tabernacle and its furniture;
for the qualification, consecration, duties and support

1 Methodist Review, July-August, 1907.

270

NEW TESTAMENT LAW 271

of Levites and priests; for the sacrifices, expiatory
and eucharistic, national and individual, which filled
the year; for innumerable ritual observances; for
gifts, tithes, fasts, and feasts; for holy days and for
sabbatic and jubilee years. Suffice it to say that to
a sharply defined civil and moral code was added a
vast and complex ceremonial order.

But the Mosaic law, as it stands in the Pentateuch,
was not destitute of spiritual elements. It obviously
lacked some conceptions common to modern thought.
There was in it no explicit recognition of God as an
infinite and immanent Spirit, of the human soul as
distinct from the body, of a future life of rewards and
punishments. Though it enjoined some high qualities
and many arduous duties, in only one passage (Deut.
30. 6) did it promise or even intimate any divine help
in the inevitable struggle. But, on the other hand,
the majesty and holiness of Jehovah, and his love
shown in the deliverance from "the land of Egypt
and the house of bondage," repeatedly enforce his
claim to the unqualified obedience of Israel. A few
times supreme love to Jehovah is enjoined ; twice the
Jew is commanded to love his neighbor as himself.
And it is to be further noted that great truths con-
cerning God and man and their mutual relations are
implicit in all laws concerning justice, purity, and
helpfulness, and in all the ritual, which allowed ap-
proach to the Holy One within the veil only with
ablutions, propitiations, and priestly mediations.
Probably the Hebrew of the Exodus but dimly per-
ceived these mysteries. The hieroglyphs were not
easily deciphered. It was reserved for the prophets

272 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

of distant centuries to penetrate to the heart of the
system, to surmise its predictive character, and to
declare, in various forms, that righteousness is more
than thousands of rams, or tens of thousands of rivers
of oil. From form to reality, from shadow to sub-
stance, the training went slowly but surely on.

How far the "statutes and judgments" given by
Moses were an inheritance from the patriarchal and
tribal life of Israel, or how far the long sojourn in
Egypt led to the adoption of some parts of its civil
and ceremonial law, it is impossible to decide. To
admit such contributions to the Mosaic law need not
affect our estimate of its divine authority or of its
wisdom. In his training of men toward a new era
God does not discard existing facts and forces. He
uses and ennobles them. And the new era for Israel
had come. Enslaved tribes were to enter on an inde-
pendent national life. And together came from
Jehovah, their Deliverer, a home, a government, a
church, and a covenant. The new system was not
ideally perfect : "the law made nothing perfect." If
tried by the standards which thirty-five additional
centuries of training have established it is in many
respects defective. Yet it fitted the age and the
people to which it was given ; in many particulars it
was far in advance of other existing systems of law;
and it held in it germs capable of an indefinite develop-
ment. The acorn prophesied the oak, for which,
however, many centuries must wait.

Meantime its stern morality and its insistence on
Jehovah's right to rule was sure to awaken a sense
of sin and a fear of judgment. "The law entered that

NEW TESTAMENT LAW 273

the offense might abound." "It was added because
of transgressions" ; that is, to the end, and with the
result, that men should know their distance from
God, their incompetence for goodness, and their con-
sequent need of redemption. It was thus a "ministry
of condemnation," the "letter that killeth." Even as
Paul wrote these words, the system, decaying and
waxing old, was ready to vanish away. The Holy
City would soon fall ; the priest and the sacrifice
v^ould cease, the chosen people would be dispersed
among all nations. Another covenant had place.
Henceforth men shall be taught to "serve in newness
of spirit and not in the oldness of the letter."

II. In two vital qualities the new covenant tran-
scended the old.

I. It was the clear revelation of the fact, vaguely
apprehended before, of the intimate relation of the
Divine Spirit to the human soul, of the illapse of Grod
on man, of the incoming and abiding of a divine
energy within all human faculties that they might
be wrought into the image of God. It was the full
disclosure of the life of God in the soul of man. The
incarnation had visibly linked heaven and earth.
Henceforth men shall know the Spirit of holiness, of
truth, of peace, and of power as the Lord and Giver
of life. Ritual law gives place to inspiration. Not in
dependence on observances of any kind are men to
seek goodness and peace. That way lies defeat.
Let them use the observances — but wisely, as oppor-
tunities to open the soul Godward. For it is this
opening of the soul and the answering inflow of the
gracious Spirit that restores the broken and chaotic

274 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

human nature to the hkeness of God and estabhshes
a blessed and perpetual fellowship between the
heavenly Father and the earthly son.

2. It corresponds with this that, in the New Testa-
ment, the formal code and the precise regulation give
place to emphasis on moral and spiritual qualities. Not
particular ethical law, but a new nature determining
all duty is its chief injunction. Witness the Beatitudes,
and, indeed, the whole Sermon on the Mount. The
blessed ones are the poor in spirit, the mourner, the
meek, they that hunger after righteousness, the pure in
heart, the merciful. Anger is murder ; the impure pur-
pose is adultery. Even when particulars only are given
they are often, if taken literally, so impracticable, so
unreasonable, or so insignificant, that we are forced
to interpret them only as indications of the spirit which
the disciple is to cherish. Few will hold that we are
to submit to all violence and robbery and invite the
repetition of them, to give to everyone that asks, to
pray only in the closet, to lay up no treasure on earth,
to pass no judgment on others. Evidently the Great
Teacher is seeking patient, loving, sincere, and just
souls. The letter is comparatively nothing; the spirit
is invaluable. The tables of stone are lost : the law is
put into the mind and written on the heart.

This contrast calls for further illustration. Let us
suppose that through the open soul and faith in Christ
one has come to the renewal and the fellowship with
God spoken of above. Inevitably he will ask : "What
shall I render to the Lord for all his benefits? What
would he have me do? What are his commands?"
To such questions the common and right answer

NEW TESTAMENT LAW 275

would be, "Go to your Bible — there learn God's will."
But the answer, though correct, needs supplement and
interpretation.

The disciple goes to the Old Testament. What does
he find ? A progressive revelation of God, the Eternal
and the Perfect One: the history of a movement, un-
hasting, unresting, toward the redemption of men by
the anointed King of Righteousness; the record of
the piety of pre-Christian ages in vivid narrative,
in profound drama, in glowing prophecy, and in songs
which thrill the heart and inspire the hymns of later
centuries — all these he finds. But when he asks for
explicit law for his daily life he is perplexed at finding
that what appear to be moral and permanent com-
mands are so intimately intermingled with, and often
modified by, civil and ceremonial law, evidently
transitory in its nature, that at length he hesitates at
receiving any precept of the Old Testament as per-
manently obligatory unless it is obviously founded on
fundamental and immutable morality, or has been
reenacted by Christ or his apostles. With profound
respect for the chosen people to whom "were com-
mitted the oracles of God," he is forced to say: "I
am not a Jew ; I am a Christian."

From the Old Testament the disciple turns to the
New. In addition to its central glory, God in Christ
reconciling the world to himself, he finds every great
spiritual quality — reverence, faith, humility, love,
patience, courage, hope — enjoined constantly, and
with the highest conceivable sanctions. He finds all
these qualities exemplified in the unparalleled life of
the Man of Nazareth. He finds that, as occasions

276 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

arose either with Christ or his apostles, some partic-
ular duties are enjoined. He finds here and there in
the volume extended discussion of spiritual law as
applied to questions emerging" in the early Church,
such as Paul's treatment of the use of meats offered
in idol sacrifices, of the use of spiritual gifts, and of
marriage — admirable illustrations of the temper in
which questions of conscience are to be considered.

But he also finds that his New Testament is not a
full and explicit directory for his daily life. Even
for his Church life he lacks such direction. His New
Testament establishes the Christian society, indicates
in general the purpose, spirit, and powers of the or-
ganization, names some of^cers and their duties as
they existed in the primitive days. But he inquires
in vain for a definite, authoritative and permanent
constitution for this body, for the number of orders
in its ministry, and the exact function of each, for
the law by which men are inducted into these orders,
for the partition of rights and duties between minis-
ters and laymen, for the method of judicial admin-
istration in the Church, and, indeed, for the vast detail
of Church work. Even the Church order which, with
variations, had place in the early Church is nowhere
made obligatory. The Great Founder saw fit to
intrust, with few limitations, the entire polity of the
Church to the wisdom of the successive generations
of Christian men. So also did he deal with the simple
rites which he instituted. Water, the symbol of purifi-
cation, was to be used in the name of the Triune God.
But how many items are left undetermined — such as
the amount of water, the age and preparation of the

NEW TESTAMENT LAW 277

candidate, the administrator, the locaHty, the accessory
services. Or contrast the minute ceremonial of the
Jewish passover, the memorial of deliverance from
Egyptian bondage, with the simplicity of the order
for the Lord's Supper, the memorial of the world's
redemption. For these and all other rites of the
Church the only rule is, 'Let all things be done to
edifying." So also the exact law of tithes is in the
New Testament replaced by the larger law, "as God
has prospered him" — an order which, if obeyed,
would overflow the treasury of the Church. Places
exclusively holy vanish from the New Testament —
"neither in this mountain nor yet at Jerusalem."
And in the presence of Paul's words to the Corin-
thians and the Galatians it is difficult to retain holy
days. All places and all times become sacred to the
Christian. "Not of the letter, but of the spirit" is
the dominant note of the true Church.

The secular life is even more lacking in explicit
directions, and the conscientious man is thereby often
sorely perplexed. He is in business, let us say. May
he deal in articles which he thinks to be hurtful to the
user? deal in articles adulterated, but not thereby
injurious ? deal in margins ? buy at the lowest possible
price, and sell at the highest whatever the exigency
which compels others to trade with him? remain
silent as to facts which, unknown to others, vitally
affect values? receive more than his goods or his
services are worth? exact all dues which the law
allows? permit any exaggeration by his subordinates?
avert iniquitous legislation by paying the money it
was planned to extort?

278 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

Or, consider the accumulation and use of money.
The Christian is to love his neighbor as himself. A
needy and suffering world is about him. How much
may he accumulate? how much expend on house,
furniture, equipage, dress, art, travel? how propor-
tion his gifts between the Church, the poor, and the
general interests of society? how far excuse himself
by gifts from personal efforts? when retire from
successful business to a life of ease?

The Qiristian is also a citizen. He is a partner in
government. May he remit the study of political
problems to official men? vote for the least bad of
two bad candidates, and for a partial good when the
ideal good seems unattainable? neglect to vote at
primary or election? refuse to bear arms, if duly
summoned? avoid taxes and jury duty when the
avoidance does not require falsehood or fraud?
disobey unjust laws?

The subject of amusements is scarcely touched in
the New Testament. Paul did not need even to name
the horrible cruelties of the arena or the shameless im-
moralities of the Roman stage. They stood self-
denounced. But does the spirit of Christianity enjoin
total abstinence from amusements? If not, how far
may one use time or money on innocent sports ? When
does indulgence become excessive? Are the theater,
the opera, the card-table, the race course allowable?
Is the dance, in any form and in any place, to be
indulged? What limit should be placed on social
entertainments, on humorous speech, on reading of
fiction ?

The family life presents difficult questions. In

NEW TESTAMENT LAW 279

what actions shall the mutual love and honor of
husband and wife declare itself? How far must un-
reasonable tempers and actions be endured? How
vigorous shall be the rule over children, and at what
age shall it be relaxed? What education is due to
each child? How early and how far must the child
contribute to family support? What is the just
authority of the parent as to the choice of the life-
work and the marriage of the child? How much is
it wise that the child inherit?

In the presence of such questions the New Testa-
ment evidently is not, and it was not intended to be,
a particular directory for life. It is not a book of
rules, but a book of principles. The New Covenant
has this glory, that it furnishes the disciple with fun-
damental truths, with right aims, with pure, noble, and
powerful affections, and thus fits him to decide all
things in faith, justice, and charity. Out of the soul
renewed in righteousness must come the law of the
daily life.

III. The fitness of this New Testament method of
law for the larger life of the race is obvious.

I. As a book, the New Testament thereby becomes
portable and readable, brief and attractive. No book
of particular laws, however bulky, could cover the
world-wide, diverse, and fluctuating conditions of
Christian life. The Moslem doctors, it is said, have
delivered to the faithful 75,000 distinct precepts — an
intolerable burden. Every question of duty stands by
itself, having some factor or factors which differenti-
ate it from all other questions, and therefore enforce
an individual answer. The variations are innumer-

28o EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

able. The nine digits can be arranged in more than
360,000 different orders. The statutes of a state may-
be contained in two or three volumes : but vast libra-
ries are needed for the discussions and decisions of
the judges who apply these laws and the principles
which underlie them to the everchanging conditions
of our modern civilization. If the New Testament
is to be of moderate compass, and inviting, it must
avoid such details, wearisome and only occasionally
applicable to current life. The glory of redemption
through the Divine Son and all the possibilities which
it opens to man for the present and the coming life,
the love which comprehends the whole law, and the
vivid depiction of these as they wrought in the new
kingdom — these are its topics. Simple in style,
easily translated — a book for the vest pocket yet in-
exhaustible in truth, in sympathy, and in spiritual
provisions — it is fitted for all races, and for all stages
of human life.

2. By this method of law the highest moral results
are secured. The valuing of external acts above
character was the pharisaism which our Lord so
sternly denounced. But the pharisaic tendency be-
longs to all ages. Many Christians are disposed to
say, "I fast twice in the week : I give tithes of all
that I possess." But because the penitence of the
publican was the beginning of a new nature, capable
of all good, he went to his house approved. With
God religious observances and gifts to the poor have
no value except as they are duly related to faith,
aspiration, and charity. It is character, and not
achievement, which he seeks. Accordingly, in the New

NEW TESTAMENT LAW 281

Testament he subordinates the particular to the gen-
eral, the precept to the principle, the deed to the
motive. Above all eloquence, all knowledge, all
miracle-working faith, all gifts, and even above the
martyr's death, is charity. Without this we are noth-
ing, and we are profited nothing.

And this is the method of all wise parents and
teachers. To the young, the ignorant, the undeveloped
they give particular and exact rules. "Do this,"
'Avoid that," "Do it in this way — ^not in that" are
the customary orders. But with advancing years and
enlarging capacities the style changes. Now the aim
and reason of the law are set forth, the meaning of
life is unfolded, the freedom and responsibility of the
child and the pupil are recognized — and outward
authority gives place to self-guidance. Undoubtedly
the transition is perilous to its subject, and often in-
expressibly disquieting to the parent. What possible
wreck of life waits on this new liberty ! Were it not
better, if it were practicable, to withhold the liberty?
But only by self-guidance is manhood attained, is
success achieved. The venture must be made what-
ever the peril or fear, or the boy remains weak and
worthless. Not otherwise does the heavenly Father
deal with the advancing generations. He removes the
limitations of the Judaic law that he may set men in
the glorious liberty of the sons of God. They shall
know truth, shall have the mind of Christ, shall judge
and determine all things by their fitness for unfold-
ing the spiritual nature. They will often err, for
they are but men ; they may make shipwreck of char-
acter. But the sincere seeker after truth and right-

282 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

eousness, even when in error of judgment, is, in the
divine estimate, far better than he who happens to
think and act rightly in an indifferent and mechanical
way. The struggle in the midst of uncertainties
develops the noblest character.

3. By this method of law Christianity is fitted to
be a universal religion. Note, first, that the unfettered
organization of the Church and the variety admissible
in its rites allow it place among men of every stage
in civilization, of various habits of life wrought by
monarchical, feudal, or free governments, and of dif-
ferent zones. Both authority and freedom have their
place in Church history as in political; and rites and
ceremonies are naturally modified by temperament,
training, and climatic conditions.

Note, secondly, as an instance of the world-wide
adaptation of Christianity, the abolition of slavery
by its spirit in the absence of the letter. In the hot
debate which preceded our Civil War, many excellent
people, indignant at the evil system and its aggres-
sions, were astonished to find that their New Testa-
ment was almost silent on the subject : that masters
were recognized as Christians, that slaves were bidden
to be obedient, and that Paul even sent back one of
his converts, a fugitive slave, to his owner. And all
this happened while the infamous Nero was on the
throne, and when one half of the Roman world, sixty
millions according to Gibbon, were slaves, their lives
as well as their liberty at the absolute disposal of their
masters. Yet neither the Great Teacher nor his chief
apostle had any explicit rebuke for the despot or the
slave-owner. Could a book of this character, some

NEW TESTAMENT LAW 283

thought, give fit law to enlightened and benevolent
men ?

The critics simply mistook. They forgot that a
change in outward conditions avails little for men
unprepared for it, and that, in the then existing con-
ditions of the Roman empire, to insist on rights rather
than on character would precipitate a horrible anarchy
and a poverty more disastrous than war, and would
end in a more ruthless despotism. Instead of such
issues came the slow, but certain, relief of society by
the doctrine of Christ. He taught, and his disciples
after him, the universal Fatherhood and love of God,
the common redemption by Jesus Christ, the gift of
the transforming spirit to all that ask, the one mercy
seat and the one Communion table accessible to high
and low, to master and slave alike, the all-compre-
hending law of love, the equal responsibility of all at
the judgment seat, and for every believer an unspeak-
able peace on earth, and an immortal glory beyond. It
was impossible that such teachings should not trans-
form human minds and human society. Laws grad-
ually became more just and lenient, masters recognized
the common brotherhood, the Church advised manu-
mission, schools for all classes were multiplied, new
charities were created, abuse of power slowly abated,
governments were reformed. At length, in the last
century, legalized slavery, as abhorrent to the spirit
of the gospel, ceased in all Christian lands. The
ideals of Christianity are yet far from perfect realiza-
tion, but the history of nineteen Christian centuries
indicates the transforming power of New Testament
principles in the absence of distinct enactments, and

284 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

prophesies a future far beyond and above the present
Hfe of the race.

4. Let it be noted that, with this method of law,
obligation expands with expanding opportunity. "As
we have opportunity, let us do good unto all men" is
Paul's word to the Galatians. But how narrow the
possibilities of these early Christians! With no part
in government, with scanty resources, having little
knowledge of, or intercourse with, distant peoples, in
literature restricted to the manuscript even where this
was possible, under the ban of public opinion — how
circumscribed their field of usefulness! To relieve
the needy, the sick, the prisoner, the sorrowing at their
door, to instruct the child and the neighbor, to reclaim
the sinful, to edify saints by holy living and mutual
exhortation — these were their chief opportunities.
But vastly greater are the obligations of men of the
twentieth century, who as citizens can aid the enact-
ment and enforcement of just, humane, and uplifting
laws, whose wealth is ample for every benevolent and
Christian enterprise, to whom all nations are now
neighbors and open for a world-evangelization, with
whom experience and organization have multiplied
power, in whose hands is the wonder-working press,
multiplying the message of truth and peace for all
men. Still, as did the Galatians, should they address
themselves by personal effort to the ignorance, the
sin, and the suffering immediately about them. But
by the divine law they are now, and hereafter will in-
creasingly be, responsible for good laws, good litera-
ture, good schools, good customs of business and
labor, good amusements, and an effective gospel mes-

NEW TESTAMENT LAW 285

sage to the whole world. The law of love puts all their
faculties, their resources, and their relations at the
command of the human brotherhood.

IV. Important practical conclusions issue from
this discussion.

I. In the presence of ethical questions the Chris-
tian must accustom himself to the silences of the New-
Testament. It declines to aid him by explicit rules.
There are a thousand duties which it does not expressly
enjoin, a thousand sins which it does not expressly
forbid. The silence is not conclusive — it is neither
here nor there. The Christian must disregard it,
unless attending circumstances, as sometimes happens,
give it meaning. He must find duty by the rule of
general consequences, by the fitness of particular
actions, or courses of action, to advance righteous-
ness in the individual and in society. Not otherwise
will he find the mind of the Master.

For illustration, let the question be concerning the
theater. May the Christian attend, or ought he to
avoid it? Here the New Testament is absolutely
silent. And no sane man is likely to hold that the
dramatic impersonation of character, whether histori-
cal, as of Julius Caesar, or fictitious, as of Shylock,
is in itself wrong. Recreation in some form is plainly
admissible — it is truly re-creation. If some exalted
souls do not seem to need it, their life cannot be a
law for the majority of men. Even the question,
"What would Jesus do?" is not decisive: for his was
a life necessarily limited by transcendent relations
and aims. But all these facts do not conclude the
case. A broader view must be taken. There must

286 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

be a study of the history and past influence of the
theater, of the conditions under which it now exists
and the tastes to which it now chiefly ministers, of
its tendency toward or away from a nobler hfe and
influence, of the character and reputation of actors
taken as a body, of the contrast between the brilHancy
and excitement of the play and the sober duties in
which the true blessedness of life abides, of its rela-
tion to the watchfulness against sin and the hunger
for righteousness on which the spiritual life depends,
of its part in the growth of an excessive craving for
absorbing pleasures, and of the Christian stewardship
of time and money concerned in the case. Only by
studies like these can right conclusions be reached.
Not interest nor inclination may rule in this and
other questions on which the New Testament is silent.
Men who believe that the supreme aim of life is char-
acter, and the supreme law of life is Ohristly service
of others, will weigh all things by their relation to
this aim and this law. There will often be painful
hesitation, inward conflict, the need of self-abnega-
tion; but all this they will accept as part of the dis-
cipline by which the Lord of souls prepares a purer
and nobler race for his glory.

2. It follows, further, that only those of a trained
moral and spiritual faculty are likely to reach right
ethical conclusions. "He that is of the truth," said
Jesus, "will hear my voice." Sincerity and uncal-
culating loyalty to right lead both to Christ and to
the knowledge of his will. The careless and indif-
ferent, the self-indulgent, the worldly and unaspir-
ing, the unloving, will almost surely miss the way.

NEW TESTAMENT LAW 287

The fumes of their selfish hearts will rise to obscure
their vision. Unspiritual themselves, how can they
discern and duly value spiritual qualities, tendencies,
and necessities? They will call evil good, and good
evil. On the other hand, let a man live in the vision of
God, his Lord and his Judge ; let him know something
of the unspeakable value of righteousness for himself
and his fellows, and of the imminence and deadly
peril of sin ; let him deeply feel that the human soul
is made for God and cannot rest without him; let
him know the brevity of life and its immeasurable
issues ; let there be wrought in him a divine compas-
sion for his human brethren, even the mind of Christ
Jesus, the servant and suffering Saviour of the race;
let him partake of the peace that dwarfs all worldly
good; let thus the inspirations of grace quicken and
exalt all his spiritual faculties and tastes, and he is
prepared thereby to think, to decide, and to act with
his Lord, He has become sensitive to all spiritual
qualities and forces. He has an almost instinctive
discrimination of the good and the evil. His new life
has positive appetencies and aversions. It has often
happened that, by the transformations wrought by
the Holy Spirit, evil habits, judgments, and tastes
have been so purged out, have so sloughed away, that
without conscious process of reasoning the man has
come to new moral conclusions — and wonders at his
former opinions. New senses have wakened in him;
new affections have emerged; new joys make former
delights insipid, or even hateful.

Without some participation in this new life no man
may rely on his moral judgments. The eyes of his

288 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

understanding are not opened. He lacks the balances
of the sanctuary.

3. The relation of the New Testament law to the
authority of the Church requires a larger considera-
tion than is here possible. The following proposi-
tions seem defensible :

(i) Every explicit law given in the New Testa-
ment, taken in its proper interpretation, should be
enforced by the Church.

(2) Some inferences from the larger ethical prin-
ciples of the New Testament are so immediate and
undeniable that the Church is justified in requiring
conformity to them by all its members. For example :
gambling, the pubHcation of indecent and pernicious
literature, the bribing of voters and ofificials, and usury
are such plain violations both of the law of love and
the law of the land that one who persists in any of
these offenses has no right to continued membership
in the Church, and should by due process be excluded
from it.

(3) The moral quality of a third class of actions
is not so easily determined. Christian men of unques-
tioned piety and wisdom differ concerning them, as
do also the Churches. The question is often one of
degrees — of either total prohibition or moderate use.
One Church, for instance, forbids without limitation
the wearing of gold or costly apparel, the laying up
treasure on earth, the use of intoxicating beverages,
the dance, games of chance, attendance on the
theater or the circus. Are such prohibitions within
the rightful authority of the Church? It is obvious
that a body of Christians in a divine fellowship for

NEW TESTAMENT LAW 289

the promotion of righteousness may and should con-
sider the probable influence of all questionable acts
and customs on the spiritual life of men, and should
unreservedly declare its judgment thereon. It is
also obvious that the pastor should faithfully discuss
before his people not only the New Testament prin-
ciples which underlie all right moral conclusions but
also their just application to all important individual
and social questions. He must speak without fear and
widiout favor. But may the Church go beyond this,
and prohibit, under penalty of expulsion from its
bosom, all the class of actions now under considera-
tion? We doubt both the right and the expediency
of such prohibition. It is an assumption by the
Church of an authority over the Individual judgment
which the New Testament nowhere confers upon it.
A part of the invaluable liberty wherewith Christ
hath made us free is that in the vast domain of morals
a multitude of questions are delivered to the deter-
mination of individual Christians. Neither Christ nor
his apostles determined them, nor did they convey
to any hierarchy or other sacred body the right to
determine them. At one time, for instance, Chris-
tians differed sharply as to the use of meats clean or
unclean or which had been offered to idols, and as to
sacred days. Saint Paul had knowledge on those
questions, and declared it. But he asserted no
authority in the case. On the contrary he said : "Let
every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
. . . Every one of us shall give account of him-
self to God. Let us not therefore judge one another
any more." This freedom still abides. It may be

290 EDWARD GAYER ANDREWS

abused. If it lapses into indifference or self-will it
will issue in ruin. But it is the indispensable condi-
tion of Christian manhood. The Church may use
freely, and even vehemently, argument, warning, and
appeal; but it may not by authority invade the sacred
region of personal conviction and self-determination.
If it attempt such invasion it is likely to overpass
reasonable bounds, to show itself provincial, and to
provoke reaction. Witness the Methodist law of
1784, which under the head of superfluity in dress
proscribed ruffles, rings, and high bonnets, and urlder
which, within the memory of men now living, women
who wore a bow of ribbon or an artificial flower were
excluded from the love feast, and many men held it
unchristian to wear buttons on the back of the coat.
We are bravely past such pettiness — but what enor-
mous claims does such legislation imply! If the
Church will regulate our reading, why not at once
establish an Index Expurgatorius after the fashion
of Rome? If it will regulate our songs, why not
justify the Church which expelled George H. Stuart,
the noble president of the Christian Commission dur-
ing the Civil War, because he sang with fellow Chris-
tians the hymns of Wesley, Watts, and Doddridge?
If it denounces with penalties the dance in every kind
and circumstance, why not take legal cognizance of
all social entertainments, festivals, and fairs? Many
believe that a high-license system is better than the
unrestrained sale of liquor. But if the Church here
asserts its authority, may it not with equal right
control the vote of its members as to temperance legis-
lation? We must conclude that the limitations of

NEW TESTAMENT LAW 291

Church authority pertain aHke to doctrine, organization,
and Hfe. A few comprehensive facts, principles, and
laws are given us in the New Testament ; but, within
these, freedom is the birthright of each Christian.

To recognize this liberty is highly expedient. In
vain, in the long run, will any Church attempt to rule
its members in matters on which the New Testament
is silent. The age grows impatient of the ex-cathedra
law. It emerges more and more from ecclesiastical
sway into the broader life of developed personality.
This fact, working with a deplorable self-indulgence,
worldly-mindedness, and feeble faith, has brought
many who were once strict in their views and habits
to a most perilous, if not absolutely sinful, abandon-
ment of their former respect for Church law. For
instance, the fact cannot be disguised that excessive
amusements and questionable amusements threaten
the spiritual and eternal life of many. But this is
in spite of law. The law may remain — but it will
continue to be disregarded far and wide ; contempt for
all Church law and order will be engendered by this
disobedience; the conscience of many who find that
they have given a pledge which they think ought not
to have been exacted from them, and which they are
unwilling to fulfill, will be weakened and defiled, or
they will withdraw from the Church; and some
upright and spiritually-minded people who do not
agree with the absolute and unconditional prohibitions
of the law will withhold themselves from a communion
otherwise their natural home. Something diviner
than a Church law of doubtful authority must be our
reliance for a higher life.

EJward Gayer Andrews : A j. -)i the -Metho-

dist Episcopal Church. By . rancis J. MeConnell.
Eaton & Mains : New York. Price, $1.50.

This is not a formal biography of the usual
lort. The author disclaims attempting such a
Ibing, although he could have done it well. He
liBB done something different, and, perhaps,
aindcr the circumstances, better. He Las given
08 the great Bishop on his different sides and on
the different aspects of his large usefulness, as
the statesman, the judge, the presiding officer,
the appointing 'power, the theological coun-
Bi eelor, the resident executive, the administrator,

^ the traveler through the connection. This

makes up the book. A few pages are given to
the years of preparation, and a few to the
period of retirement. There is a selection from
the many tributes paid. There are four papers
and sermons, including one article from the
Review, entitled, " The New Testament Method
»f Law," the address to the graduating class at
Garrett on " The Pastor and his Bible," the
baccalaureate sermon at Cornell College, and
the address 'at McKinley's funeral. Another
paper of great interest, not before published, is
given in full, namely, one prepared on the case
of Professor Mitchell to assist his counsel (the
author of this book), treating very thoroughly
and judiciously the question whether "The
World Before Abraham" was sufficiently at
variance with Methodist belief to warrant the
condemnation of its author for heresy. Bishop
Andrews shows conclusively that it was not,
that the positions of the book are in entire
harmony with the conclusions of very many
most emicent and most orthodox scholars.
^ Bishop Andrews stood for freedom of thought
•■^ in theological matters ; he was distinctly on the
"~ Bide of those who believe in the process of
r' reconstruction now going on, as did Bishop
Merrill. It was Prof. William Newton Clarke'c
_"» " Outline of Christian Theology," we learn from
<rf these pages, issued in 1898, when the Bishop
"r^ was seventy-three years old, that made the
". turning-point in his thinking — a marvelous
^ fact. He says of this book : " A nobler com-
r^ bination of freedom and conservatism, of clear
intellectual processes with the sweetness and
fervor of devoutness, of strength of material
with grace of form, has rarely or never come to
my library." It influenced him profoundly, as
it must any one who reads it with an open mind.
Bishop Andrews had an open mind up to the
last, and also a humble spirit. A remarkable
Illustration of this is given by the biographer.
He was to preach one day for Dr. A. H. Tuttle.
Just before he rose to preach he walked over
to Dr. Tuttle in evident distress and requested
%im to leave the room, giving as a reason: "I
tan preach before the people, but not before
jou." His ideals were so very high that they
kept him modest. He was a truly great man,
ine of the best of all the Bishops that our great
church has had. This admirable volume will
help to show it and to perpetuate his well-
deaerved fame.

r,vo.„. BOSTON UNIVERSITY

BX8495.A64F09 gOSS

Edward Gayer Andrews

1 i7n 00DT3 Tatb