The Methodist Quarterly Review
July 1878

ART I. - THE DOCTRINES AND DISCIPLINE OF THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH.
The Book of Discipline is regarded by many with a respect akin to the reverence felt for the Holy Scriptures. In those pioneer days when the itinerant's portable library always contained the Bible, the hymn Book, and the Discipline, this reverence was begotten. It does, indeed, represent and regulate more vitality than any other ecclesiastical book in America. It is the guide and final appeal of ten thousand pastors and Quarterly Conferences, and of all the District and Annual Conferences, and of a million and a half of members. The Discipline of. the Church, South, is also essentially identical with it.

Americans, more than any other people, are governed by written constitutions and statutes. The Methodist Episcopal Church, more than any other Church, has adopted this American practice. Government by written constitutions has some serious disadvantages. It is hampered by the "letter," which sometimes "killeth; " and strict constructionists idolatrously worship forms of speech which were adopted by men who may have been inferior to their successors in ability, as they must have been younger in experience of history, and who could not have anticipated all the effects of their own enactment. Where the written constitution is absent, or is unimportant, as in the British Government and also in the English Wesleyan ecclesiastical government, conservatives are inclined to worship precedent. B any government may, if the exigency seems to justify it, make a new precedent. To override a written compact is not so easy; still, all are familiar with

the apothegm of the British judge about a four-horse chariot and an act of Parliament.

The Methodist Discipline has been much changed. Parts of it are utterly unlike the first forms. A new edition is published quadrennially, embracing the amendments made by the latest General Conference. We assume that our readers are aware that there is a small part of the Discipline over which the General Conference has no power. To change these parts word be a revolution. They cannot alter, subtract from, or add to the twenty five Articles of Religion. It is singular that, notwithstanding this explicit provision, efforts have been made to revise the creed. The excellent report of the Bishops on a revised creed that had been submitted to them for examination, made at the General Conference of 1S6, has probably finally settled the impossibility of such action..* An-other part of the constitution that, by implication, cannot be changed without a revolution, is the very provision that limits the power of the General Conference. If that could be nullified by a majority vote all the restrictions would be useless.

It is, however, worthy of our inquiry, whether Americans are not liable to become idolaters of " constitutions." No other peoples, ancient or modern, seem to have found it so necessary for one generation to hamper all succeeding generations by specifying just how much their successors shall or shall not do. What could possibly give the less than a hundred young ministers who first adopted the Discipline prescience and wisdom enough to set limits to the power of all their successors, to the latest generations I It is not to be wondered at that" constitutions," when they conflict with what seems right and prudent, are compelled to yield-for every generation must assume its own responsibilities and bear its own burdens. We should educate our successors so that they may be trusted. Still, it is doubtful whether the Methodist Episcopal Church will ever find it needful to modify its Articles of Religion. They are, indeed, the product of the thought and controversies of other times. They are fragmentary and incomplete. They speak with

* General Conference Journal, 1876, p. 206.

great distinctness on subjects that are not now discussed and unit some of the most fundamental questions on doctrines of religion. As a creed, they fail to represent the belief of Methodists, and exert bat little influence. They ought to be amended, but the letter of the "constitution" forbids-a clear instance of bondage to a form of words.

Yet no Church maintains a greater uniformity of belief, especially among the ministers, than the Methodist Churches, probably by the itinerancy of the preachers, which natural]y represses all eccentricity that will interfere with the general acceptability of a pastor.

All other parts of the Discipline except the Articles of religion can be changed, some few rules requiring the concurrence of three fourths of the members of the General Conference present and voting, and two thirds of the members of the Annual Conferences present and voting-all the rest requiring only a simple majority vote of the General Conference. The natural consequence is, that every General Conference finds itself beset at its opening by a flood of propositions to alter the letter of the Discipline in different parts, which are usually referred in due form to committees early in the session, whence it appears at first as though the entire book would be so transformed that neither friend nor foe would be able to recognize anything in the new issue but the title; and, indeed, it has been gravely proposed to change that. A majority of these propositions are disapproved in the committee room; others, reported upon favorably, are never acted upon by the General Conference; others are rejected, and a residue are discussed, modified, and adopted; and the consequence is that many of the substantial features of the Discipline as it was in 1780 remain the same in the last edition of 1876. Yet there have been many amendments, and many additions, and some abolishment. The book is far better, both in letter and character, and as an embodiment of ecclesiastical law and experience, than ever before. To declaim against all changes in the letter and arrangement of the Discipline is sentiment. It shows a lack of moral courage. Every thing alive must accommodate itself to actual facts and demands. All who have the constitutional right to vote, directly or indirectly, for an improvement of the Discipline, have a right to advocate the improvement, and advice even from others should not be spurned. We propose in this article, published about midway between the sessions of two General Conferences, when the Church may be supposed to have the least possible feverish interest in the subject, to recommend some improvements in our present Discipline.

We premise that no committee of a General Conference should fail to report as early as possible to the General Conference its opinion on any proposition referred to it. A committee has no right to stifle any subject committed to it. Let a timely report be made, and let the whole General Conference act upon it. Again, the practice that has prevailed in our General Conferences, of loading the table with reports and propositions of various kinds, and then at about the beginning of the fifth week appointing the Bishops, or the Bishops and the Chairmen of the Standing Committees, to decide what business shall come before the Conference, and what shall be rejected without discussion, is unbecoming the dignity of such a body. A committee has the right to claim that the General Conference should in all cases clear the table, even if it should require six months to do it. They might fix a day, say the twentieth day of the session, after which no new business should be introduced without the consent of three fourths, which should be tested without debate; and also fix a day previous to which all committees should in make their final report; but then they should quietly sit and dispose of every proposition before them. Such a course only is worthy the dignity and responsibility of such a body.

Changes may be sought in the Discipline, either to improve the literature and character of the book, or actually to improve the economy of the Church. We propose to consider these two classes of changes.

The literary style of the Discipline had, at first, some remarkably good characteristics, arid also some eccentricities that should not be perpetuated. John Wesley, in the beginning' of his wonderful work, used to hold what lie called "Conversations between Mr. John and Charles Wesley, and others," the published minutes of which were the first written bond of union of the few "people called Methodists." These "conversations" were universally drawn up in the form of questions and answers, "Q." personating the inquirer, and "A." the final authority. There is no hint that the Conference ever formally voted. Every thing was in the uniform tread of Q. and A. Annually a catechism of this kind was published from 1765 to the death of Mr. Wesley, in which appears much matter of only a local and temporary interest. How, it so happened when the Methodist Episcopal Church was organized in this country, and the first edition of our Discipline was published, this system of question and answer was adopted, and very much matter that at best was of only temporal value was inserted in the text. Mr. Wesley published no pastoral addresses. Every thing that he wished to say, however insignificant, that was yet deemed worthy to go into "Annual Minutes,"

was printed; and when our Discipline came to be made up much of this matter was inserted, without due regard to its permanent application to a people three thousand miles away. When the English Wesleyans came to publish a book entitled "The Sunday Service of the Methodists, with other Occasional Services," they wisely omitted all such matter and their Annual Minutes of the present day omit all the temporary pastoral advice given a hundred years ago by John Wesley, much of which is retained in our Discipline. The parts of the Discipline to which this remark applies are particularly paragraphs 115-129 inclusive; 135-143 inclusive. We do not undervalue the genuine piety inculcated in these words of advice, but our criticism is that they are not suited to be a stereotyped description of what Methodists need, and when thus stereotyped they soon become obsolete and worthless. They partake of the nature of cant. Mr. Wesley wrote them for the time, and used to vary his exhortations. We would much prefer to have our Discipline free from such exhortations, and that each General Conference should appoint a committee to write a full discriminating Pastoral Address, which, indeed, with great propriety, might be printed in the Appendix of the Discipline-a special address for every edition. The absurdity of one of the directions in paragraph 124 is evident:

"We recommend a serious perusal of 'The Cause, Evils, and Cures of Heart and Church Divisions.'" Not a hundred Ministers out of our ten thousand ever saw the tract. Mr. Wesley's Minutes abounded in similar minute directions, which he struck out from following editions. For instance: from 1772 to 1808, every edition of the Annual Minutes had these strange questions and answers :-

Q. How far does each of you agree to submit to the judgment of the majority?

A. In speculative things each can only submit so far as his judgment shall be convinced.

In every practical point each will submit so far as he can without wounding his conscience.

Q. Can a Christian submit further than this to any man or body of men upon earth?

A. It is undeniable; he cannot, either to council, bishop, or convocation. And this is that grand principle of private judgment on which all the reformers proceeded.

In this is seen Mr. Wesley's liberality, so much in advance of his age, and this stood in the Minutes thirty six years. It certainly deserves a place in our Discipline far more than the sections above referred to. Yet we would have no such, or similar, advice in the book. In the Minutes from 1780 to 1789 was found the blowing: "Avoid quaint words, how-ever in fashion, as 'object,' 'originate,' 'very,' 'high,' etc." In that we see the delicacy of taste of the refined and conservative scholar. All the words he "objected" to arc now "very" common, and Methodist preachers use them without rebuke. In 1789 he had the good sense to omit this direction; but the same year he introduced this advice to his ministers: " Wear no slouched hat!" Perhaps it might be well to reintroduce that. How should we like to see the following in the Discipline, from Mr. Wesley's Minutes of 1780 l "After preaching take a little lemonade, mild ale, or candied orange-peel. All spirituous liquors, at that time especially, are deadly poi sons." Occasionally the Wesleyans for some years introduced similar directions in their Annual Minutes. As, for instance, in the Minutes for 1800 we find, "We think some of our hearers are in danger of mistaking emotions of the affections for experimental and practical godliness. To remedy or prevent as far as possible these errors, let Mr. Wesley's extract of Mr. Edwards' pamphlet on the Religious Affections he printed without delay, and circulated among our people." But we need not multiply instances. A stereotyped look, like our Discipline, is no place for such counsel, as though given to a whole Church, and applicable to all time. Mr. Wesley is far more honored by having them omitted than by having them continually repeated without producing any good effect. We think, also, that the old chapter on Slavery, paragraph 36, is obsolete. It is no more needed than a chapter on idolatry or cannibalism. It dignifies the dead carcass of slavery too much to retain this chapter. There are a great many associations, pleasant and otherwise, connected with it, but a book of doctrines and discipline is not to be maintained for associations, but for use and dignity. The obliteration of the chapter would be an improvement. The "rules relating to marriage," paragraphs 41-44, are entirely neglected. We either need less or more on that subject. It would be much better to do as our Wesleyan brethren do, leave all such matters to the Annual Minutes, or to the quadrennial pastoral addresses. Can any one give a good reason for that little remnant of a chapter on "Dress," now found in paragraph 491 "This is no time to encourage superfluity in dress." Why not, at this time as well as any other I When was there, or when will there be, "a time" to do it? Who does not see that this was a temporary note of Mr. Wesley, never designed for a permanent statute I had he been called upon to frame a law for a century and for all nations he would have expressed better thought in a more suitable style. As a permanent part of the Discipline it is simply nonsense. It is always well to bury the dead. Our quadrennial pastoral addresses should not be unmeaning generalities, prefaced and ended by the hackneyed quotations from an apostolic epistle, but a true vital discriminating setting forth of present wants and duties. Let us have a brief valuable pastoral address in every edition of the Discipline.

The committee on revisal of 1872 greatly improved the mechanical form of the Discipline, and would have done much more had their full report been allowed to come before the Conference. At this time the formal "questions" disappeared and the answers alone remained, and the order of the matter was greatly modified.

So far we have spoken on the mere form of the Book, but now we approach a much more difficult subject, and one that well deserves all the space that can be afforded to our article-the changes demanded in the actual economy of the Church, to be introduced by slight changes in the phraseology of the Discipline. The modifications proposed with the most definiteness relate to the Episcopacy, the Presiding Eldership, and the abolishment of the limitation of the preachers' service to three successive years in any one appointment, till after the lapse of three more years.

Some have expressed the thought that our system of government would be improved if our Bishops were elected for four years, perhaps eligible to one re-election. They say this would complete the analogy of our system. We have no other life-offices. Our Bishops are really elders appointed for specific work; let all temptations to the adoption of any other theory be removed. If there is any foolish tendency to ecclesiastical pride and servility, let it be checked easy in our history.

These arguments are not unworthy of notice, and it should never be forgotten that the Church has this matter under its own control. The General Conference is supreme, and should the Episcopacy ever become unpopular or unprofitable such propositions would be earnestly agitated. The great branches of Methodism have different methods of securing what all believe to be essential to its spirit, a warm evangelicalism or earnest experimental piety, a striking uniformity of religious belief; and the itinerancy of the ministry. Lose either of these, and Methodism is so transformed as to deserve a new name. The British Wesleyans secure these by what may be called a select or aristocratic Annual Conference, representing the whole body, having its one annual president or bishop. This select Conference, embracing now a body of lay advisers and co-operators, has all ultimate power, and controls the various subordinate organizations. The greater part of the ministers are never members of any Conference above a District Conference. It would be positively impossible to introduce any thing like this in America. Such a system must grow, and will not bear transplanting. In Canada a system has been adopted about midway between the British and American. They have Annual Conferences embracing all the ministers-not, as in England, a select few-a delegated General Conference meeting once in four years, and a president who is practically superintendent, or bishop, for four years.

The Methodist Episcopal Church claims to be the best representation of John Wesley's maturest thoughts on Church organization. His advice was not slavishly followed, but it had great influence, and the first Discipline undoubtedly received his approval. The superintendents or bishops are not a reproduction of the bishops of the early, or medieval, or the English Church. They have scarcely any thing in common with them but the name. They are the perpetual presidents of the General Conferences and the Annual Conferences, with the usual duty of presidents, temporarily to decide questions of order and law; empowered to determine the number of the districts in the Annual Conferences, and to appoint elders to the charge of them, and to appoint the remaining elders and preachers-with a few exceptions-to their fields of labor; in the intervals of the Annual Conferences to change, receive, and suspend preachers, according to disciplinary directions; to exercise a general and undefined supervision; and to ordain such as are designated for the purpose by the Annual Conferences. Besides these, other duties may or may not be imposed upon them. Every one can see that the chief function and demand of their office is to maintain the regularity of the meetings of the Annual Conferences, and the annual appointments of all the preachers, observing the restrictions and rules which they do not make and cannot modify, but arc charged to execute. Men to perform this office will need no undefined and indefinable halo, such as the unthinking. may suppose to be. connected with a fabulous apostolic succession. They are elders, selected to perform a peculiar and responsible work. The Church will naturally choose for this office men of mature years and judgment, of unquestioned integrity and piety, and of good general ability, and of not too pronounced peculiarity. Eccentricity would be deemed objectionable.

If the office should become practically a sinecure, or too great a temptation to ambition, or in any way fail to promote the zeal and self-denial and piety and success of the ministry and the welfare of the people, the Church can modify it so as to reach the designed purpose. The power of the Episcopacy is, therefore, just what it ought to be, chiefly moral. It has great influence because it deserves it, because its incumbents are modest and earnest, and working, like the rest of the ministry, for the salvation of men.

The most of the propositions to modify the Episcopacy exhibit this fatal weakness-the lack of justifying occasion.

They are urged on theoretical grounds. Indeed, no modifications have ever been seriously proposed, except to limit their power by taking away the responsibility of determining how many presiding elders there should be, and of appointing the incumbents, and to restrict still further the appointments of the preachers. Besides these propositions, it has been suggested that the bishops be elected for four years, eligible to a re-election. The propositions that affect the presiding eldership and the stationing of the preachers will be best considered elsewhere. It has also been proposed to district the entire territory of the Church, so as to assign to each bishop for four years a certain definite field specially to supervise, in addition to his share in a certain residue of general interests. It is urged in behalf of a limited term of service for the bishops that it would be in better analogy with all the other offices under control of the General Conference, such as the editors and corresponding secretaries, and also with the office of presiding elder. Judging from what has been done in Canada and elsewhere, it is very likely that if it were left to the Church practically to decide the question de novo, many would prefer a presidency of a limited time. The temptations to forget the well established theory of the Church on ordination would be less; the certainty of securing the highest efficiency in the presiding officers would be greater; the retiring incumbents would be superannuated preachers, not superannuated presidents or bishops; and the avowed simplicity of the Church theory on the subject would be maintained. Nor do we think that the frequency of elections in the General Conference could sensibly add to any unhealthy excitement on the subject. The proper way to diminish that is to make the offices desirable chiefly for increased usefulness.

But changes are seldom made from mere theoretical considerations. Practically, our bishops are man of mature experience, who find after obtaining their office no field of ambition open before them but simply to perform their duties in the most efficient way possible.. Their office is easily understood, abundant in labor, and furnishing simply a comfortable support; and all the traditions of the past and incentives of the present combine to demand vigilance and faithfulness and impartiality. The law-making authorities of the Church will, therefore, not be likely to disturb tile tenure of office; and all tile less so since the General Conference consists so largely of laymen-for the laity are constitutionally little concerned about questions of priority or gradation in tile ministry.

In behalf of districting the work of the bishops, many strong reasons may be urged. It word concentrate and greatly increase the influence of the bishop in his own district. He could easily make himself powerfully felt in the course of four years throughout one tenth or fifteenth of the Church he could, in addition to presiding at the Annual Conferences, preside at many of the District Conferences, and become person ally acquainted with the schools, the Churches, and all the leading Church enterprises of his district. It would be a saving of expense of money and of time, now consumed in travel. It would more uniformly distribute the labor of tile bishops, substituting individual responsibility for a kind of communism, which always inures to the advantage of the weak and discourages the strong.

The tendency of advancement is universally toward division of labor and responsibility. Once the circuit system prevailed, and the influence of a pastor was spread over many societies. Human nature is too strong for this system, except where the societies are too weak to resist it. So, it is urged., the universality of the field of the episcopal labor in must yield to make the influence of the bishop more palpable and valuable.

To all this it is objected, first, that it would " violate the constitution!" They shall not "destroy the plan of our itinerant general superintendency." And, forsooth, arc those few words, adopted by a hundred men, a hundred years ago, to bind the judgment of all their successors in all time, so that nothing whatsoever can be done which the greatest human ingenuity may pronounce a violation of this phrase Such general words must have a general interpretation, or the iron bar will break. "A general superintendency" is maintained, though every general superintendent is not required to visit every spot in the vast domain of the Church once every month, or once even in any decade of years. It is not proposed that a permanent diocese be erected for each bishop. This would violate the principle of general superintendency. Our preachers are itinerant, and our presiding elders and our bishops should be itinerant. They should change their districts, as others change their fields of labor, to make the itinerancy perfect. But this does not prevent each one from having a particular field under his charge for a limited time. It is objected, secondly, that this system would interfere with the proper visitation of our foreign missionary fields. But certainly there ought to be sufficient constructive and legislative power in a General Conference to provide for this exigency. Perhaps one bishop might spend the whole of a quadrennial in this work, and do it with more efficiency and less expense than in the present system.

The time is not far distant when some important problems will grow out of this foreign missionary work. "The Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States of America" cannot well cover and manage the interests of all who ought to be Methodists in all the world. It is to be hoped that there will be magnanimity and true Christianity enough ere long, in the different Methodist bodies which support missions, to en courage all their mission societies in some of the larger nations to unite in one Church, which shall be allowed to form its own government according to the views of the majority. This would not imply the cessation or diminution of the missionary contributions, so long as they are needed. A sentiment that should confine missionary aid to absolute denominational attachments is narrow and unchristian. A desire to have one gigantic Church, rather than a fraternity of Churches, is Hildebrandic rather than Christian. Let the nineteenth century show a principle and wisdom nobler than the thirteenth. What we most need in all our body, bishops, preachers, and members, is not a longing after power and pomp and parade, but after the salvation of souls.

The Methodist Episcopal Church has a providential and efficient system of government. Its Episcopacy is one of its noblest elements. But, like all the rest, it is undoubtedly subject to changes. Nothing truly efficient is inelastic and unimprovable. We do not believe that any changes proposed to diminish its influences should be favored, and unless the adoption of the district system would insure its efficiency it should not be made.

The presiding eldership is the next peculiar feature that some propose to modify. Like almost all truly valuable institutions, the presiding eldership had an obscure origin, the legislation rather following than providing for its changes till it had assumed a definite form. It may gratify curiosity, but it really should have little weight on subsequent legislation, to ascertain just what authority the first presiding elders had in those days of feebleness when the Methodist Episcopal Church was assuming form. In experience the fathers were children, and the present generation are the fathers. In piety we are willing to accord to the natural fathers the front rank, but we will not reproach them with the charge of having weakened their own Church organization, or with having raised up a generation that has done it. For this reason we feel but a slight interest in the discussions of the early or even later history of the origin and proposed changes of the presiding eldership. It is, indeed, true that during the first decade of the history of the Church animated discussions took place on the question. For this many reasons can be given. The Church was then assuming its character. Discussions were necessarily mostly theoretical. Politicians, both civil and ecclesiastical, naturally take great interest in such themes, especially in the absence of more practical matters. The great enterprises now embodied in the Missionary, Church Extension, Sunday-School, Educational, Tract, and Freedmen's Aid Societies, and others of the kind, were yet undeveloped. Mere Church economy absorbed the most of the thoughts of legislators during the sessions of Conferences. In these discussions some of our most honored names are found successively for and against a change in the presiding eldership, though in -1 cases the final result was against any great modification of the plan reached in the first decade of the Church, and we do not recollect a single instance of a man starting in opposition to the change and ending in its favor. There are, however, several notable instances of the opposite. This is significant.

The first great secession of the Church, also, under the leadership of Rev. James O. Kelly, was the direct result of a determination to make the presiding elders elective by the ministers. The leaders of the party who set up for themselves are said to have been equal in talents to those who adhered to the Church. Some think they were superior as economists. They arc not charged with deficiency in religion or zeal; they took with them a sufficiently large part of the preachers and membership to try a fair experiment. The Church was young and the country young, and they had a fair field in which to test their methods; and yet now, after about eighty years of experiment, there is not a State, or a country, or a single city, in which they have succeeded so well as the mother Church. Truly this, too, is significant! Why should we harass our minds in the discussion of abstract theories about practical questions, when we have the inductive evidence of their value before our eyes?

The presiding eldership as it is, in our opinion, should be credited with having originated and maintained at least a third of our present societies. We regard it as the most efficient and most economical system of episcopal supervision and of home missionary work ever devised-the joint product of human skill and divine Providence-to co-operate with our Episcopacy in carrying out our itinerancy of the ministry, such as to secure the constant activity of the members and the constant supply of the Churches.

The living economy of the Church has adapted itself to this institution. It has become a part of our vitality. The presiding elders, it is true, seem theoretically invested with great power. Under their counseling, often greatly influenced by them, the presiding bishop theoretically assigns all the preachers of a Conference annually to their fields of labor. But who does not know the numerous limitations of this power, that cannot be recognized by legislation? Again, these presiding elders are no separate independent caste. The presiding elders receive their own appointments annually. No one can preside over one district more the four years, nor again over that district till after an interval of six years. If any Conference express a wish that no one shall serve in the office more than one term at a time, the wish, so far as is known, is always granted. It is not usually an office desirable for worldly ease or profit. The present system combines elasticity with order, vowing a presiding elder to be changed at any time during the session of the Conference, and even, in extraordinary instances, after the close of a session-an exigency which it would be practically impossible to provide for under any system of election. Again, the judicial economy of the Church is indissolubly connected with the present system. All the questions growing out of complaints, trials and the result, and appeals, are so incorporated with the present system that a radical change of it would be almost equivalent to a dissolution of the itinerancy and an attempt to reconstruct it on a new model. There is really no valid reason why the preachers should elect the presiding elders, and assign them their fields of labor, any more than why they should assign each other their fields of labor.

For these reasons we are of opinion that from time to time, when the Church has no weightier business on hand, discussion of the presiding eldership will arise in the papers and Conferences, and the result will probably be, as heretofore, a determination to resist any considerable changes in the old system.

The proposal to abolish the law that forbids a preacher to remain in one pastoral charge more than three years, or his return till after the expiration of three years, or that he shall serve in the same charge more than three years in six, has never yet been warmly advocated in a General Conference, nor elicited a very formidable support. Still, there are some successful preachers and some enterprising laymen who doubt whether the Church really gains by the present law. Their arguments are as follows:-

1. The restriction seems to have been made originally without due consideration. At first some of the preachers were required to exchange their appointments at the end of six months, and when it was found that a few were likely to become permanent pastors the two years' rule was adopted, which has been extended to three years without inconvenience. Why not extend the term indefinitely?

2. Long pastorates have peculiar power. We envy other denominations their influence arising from a few Churches under the leadership of men of a marked personality. Our denomination is not wanting in such men, who, if they had opportunity, would reach similar results. Many of our ministers feel that they lose power by their frequent changes of pastoral charge.

3. Method is not as efficient in the cities as in the country. Some other denominations are more efficient in the city than in the country. Is not this attributable to the itinerancy?

4. Let us have freedom. Let our bishops, with the advice of the presiding elders, be clothed with unrestricted power. Let them have authority to change the pastoral charge of every preacher every year if they see fit; or let the authority of the bishops be restricted, so that they shall not change the pastoral charge of any minister unless he, or the Church, or both, ask for it. Here, of course, is room for much legislation, to define how a pastor or a Church may ask for a new appointment.

We have stated these arguments briefly but fairly, and more forcibly than we have seen them stated by any who seem to believe in their validity. But, notwithstanding the plausibly of these arguments, we cannot favor this change of the Discipline. It would infallibly destroy all itinerancy in less than twenty-five years. No denomination would submit to have a bishop, or a body of bishops, decide whether the preachers should change their appointments, and then settle them, guided by law. On the other hand, if the Episcopacy is simply to app ministers who desire to move, over Churches that desire other pastors, it will sink into insignificance and perish.

There are two kinds of loyalty-loyalty to persons and loyalty to law. So there are two kinds of authority, the authority of person's and the authority of law. The former is bondage, the latter is freedom. In a State, absolute despotism is properly tempered by assassination, if the despot will not retire in a Church, supreme personal authority is not to be thought of. The itinerancy, therefore, must not be under the control of the bishops. They are to execute, not to make, law. They should not even be allowed to make the occasion for the execution of the law. Removing the limitation of law would so increase the responsibility and power of the bishops that both they and the itinerancy would soon disappear together.

But if there is to be an itinerancy when and )ere individuals-either ministers only, or Churches, or both-shall choose, then the itinerancy is doomed. It would he too capricious to be tolerated. In such a case the bishop would be a mere umpire to aid undesirable pastors to find undesirable Churches.

But now look at the present facts, and see c beauty and majesty of impartial LAW, not merely submitted to, but cheerfully adopted and obeyed by all, for the universal good. The whole denomination, for convenience, is divided into Conferences of about one hundred and twenty societies and preachers each. Transferences from one Conference to another are voluntary. As no preacher can remain more than three years at any appointment, usually about one fifth-never quite one third-must be changed. This is not decided by the bishop, but by the LAW. That precludes all argumentation. It precludes all personal tyranny. It is the system-it is not personal caprice-that decides this fact. Always a fair proportion of the ablest preachers and of the strongest Churches are among those that must change. These would not usually seek a change for personal reasons, but now yield to it because it i8 the law. If the minister is very popular, and the Church is entirely satisfied, so much the better, and so much more is the law honored. We would have it so always if we could. The ideal requires that every pastor and every Church should not desire a change for personal reasons. This makes the duty of the bishop respectable. He is not arranging places for malcontents. He is appointing popular preachers to desirable places. It will not do just to fill the vacancies with ministers who have served out their term; some have died; some have retired from active work; some new preachers are admitted. Some preachers who have not filled out all the time possible to them may be sent to some vacant Churches for mutual accommodation; this makes other vacancies; and thus the fact that a large number of preachers MUST go to new appointments renders the whole system respectable, and much more easily worked than it otherwise could be. We repeat, take away the legal, impersonal compulsion, and the system would speedily collapse.

The fact is, that the Methodists all over the world have grown into power under a regular inflexible itinerancy of the ministry, required by law, and regulated by the chosen executors of law. They prefer the system, with all its disadvantages, for its superior advantages. We say "with all its disadvantages," for every system implies limitations. We freely confess that the itinerancy has some disadvantages. So has every practical system, actual or conceivable. Congregationalism has some advantages over a connected Church, but actual trial proves, also, that it has many weaknesses. Perhaps an itinerancy of the ministers would not be the best for the entire Church of Christ; but, be this as it may, if a century's history has proved any thing, it is that Methodists ought to adhere to it. One great body of Christians should maintain it. The more popular their ministers, and the more the Churches admire and love them at the end of their term of service, the more faithfully should all adhere to the law.

All the arguments urged in behalf of the repeal of this law are sufficiently answered by this one statement: The Methodists of this generation desire to maintain the character with which they started, and which has been strengthening for about one hundred and fifty years. Their pastors have always been itinerant from a general legal choice. We do not envy other denominations their beautiful long pastorates. We wonder they have so few, and if they are really efficient we hope they may have many more. We also have bishops and many itinerant pastors who have a reputation not confined to one locality, but in some cases almost cosmopolitan, in others national, in others embracing a Conference; and though "comparisons are odious," yet, if our system is attacked, we can show that by it the influence and power and usefulness of men of great mental power and spiritual worth is not diminished, but enhanced. We believe that as John Wesley and Bishop Asbury were respectively the most widely known and the most useful Christian teachers in their generation and in their two nations, so the system of itinerancy gives ample play for the greatest possible success. We will show man for man, according to our numbers, whom God has blessed with as great reputation and usefulness as any other men in any other branch of the Church of Christ.

Instead of asking why Methodism 'does not succeed as well in the cities as in the country, it might be well to ask why, beginning in a city, it has outstripped all others in the rural districts, and at the same time accomplished so much in the cities? What need is there of any more settled pastorates in the cities? Cannot the almost numberless denominations at have that system supply the demand, without calling upon the only people that have another system to help them? The cities as yet have more wickedness than the country. There are many who desire a Christian profession, who, nevertheless, do not admire the Methodist strictness or usages. But why should we murmur at that? Can the cities of the United States afford to lose the Methodist Episcopal Church, even with its itinerant ministry? If any of our preachers or people prefer a settled ministry, can they not find it? With the most perfect good feeling, we say that Church connection ought not to be decided chiefly by heredity, but by a mature and sound judgment. any desire a settled pastorate, by all means find one-but find it outside of the Methodist Episcopal Church. The true ideal of the Christian Church is unity of purpose, with a variety of organization; and the world does need one large vigorous denomination with an itinerant ministry.

Itinerancy tends to preserve orthodoxy, as heresy is far less profitable to an itinerant preacher than to one who can surround himself with a body of sympathizing heretics. It tends to industry; for every preacher is called upon to give an account of his stewardship annually, and is dependent for success largely upon a general as well as a local reputation, and cannot afford to be idle. It tends to connectional power, which Protestant Christendom much needs.

For these reasons we are willing to forego the advantages of a few permanent pastorates-how few, indeed!-and, while other denominations work their machinery, will endeavor to work ours, believing that it is the gift of Providence, and designed to be mighty in spreading "scriptural holiness over these lands."

The Methodist Episcopal Church is a vitality. It is an organization, not an aggregation. Organizations must fight constantly for existence. The lower laws of nature are against them, and the higher laws prevail only by resisting the lower. There is more discussion of ecclesiastical government in the Methodist newspapers of a single month than there would be in ten years if their government were simply congregational. But so long as an organization is successful and provides for the comfort and good of its individual constituents, it will be likely to enjoy an espirit du corps, and, though constantly losing from its number many who are not in harmony with it, will secure efficiency and growth. If the Methodist Episcopal Church, highly organized as it is, did not lose from its fold many both ministers and members, it would be a strong symptom of degeneracy! This we say without even a latent reproach toward any who leave. On the other hand, in the great sisterhood of evangelical denominations men should seek the machinery by. which they can gain and accomplish the most good. It is probable that the Methodist Episcopal Church in America since its origin has introduced to the Christian profession nearly, if not quite, as many, both members and ministers, who have gone into other folds, as those who have remained under its own banner. It might tone down its doctrine and usages so as to retain nearly all its converts, but in such a case it would have proportionally less to retain! Also, it has now reached a condition when it begins to receive as well as to give. Union with such an organization ought not to be merely a matter of heredity or of accident. Those who wish to fight on the water join the navy; those who wish to fight on the land join the army. Let those who wish to join and work a strong connectional Church with an itinerant ministry join the Methodists, and those who want what they call a "settled ministry" certainly can find several folds exactly suited to their demands.

In no one fact does the remarkable vitality of the Methodist Episcopal Church exhibit itself more than in the original independence of and dissimilarity to the civil government of the nation. Careful observers of history perceive that it is impossible for two great powers to affect a people at the same time without becoming similar in spirit and form. When the Roman empire, under Constantine, embraced Christianity, it was necessary for one or both to yield, so that they could embody the wishes of the same people. Both yielded almost equally. The empire gave up its pagan customs, and the Church gave up its republicanism. James Bruce, D.C. L., well says in his work on "The Holy Empire* "Since the ecclesiastical organization could not be identical with the civil, it became its counterpart. Suddenly called from danger and ignominy to the seat of power, and finding her inexperience perplexed by a sphere of actions vast and varied, the Church was compelled to frame herself upon the model of the secular administration."

The historian seems here, all unconscious of the fact, to be

* Published by Macmillan & O, London, 1821.

uttering a broader truth. History never repeats itself in phenomena, but continually repeats itself in principle. It is practically impossible for a Church to flourish without conforming itself in its government to the usages of the people. The prevalent Roman Catholic usage are inharmonious with republican interests, and therefore in a republic the more intensely Roman Catholic a man is the less patriotic is he, and the contrary. If civilization engenders republics-and we certainly believe it doe-then Roman Catholicism must become weak, or modify its usages. If all the evangelical Protestants in the United States should unite in one ecclesiastical organization-a thing not at all improbable for the twentieth century-the government of the combined body will be strikingly analogous with the contemporary government of the nation, whatever that may be.

Till within ten years the Methodist Church was governed by its minister Many of them seldom, if ever, voted in political elections; not one in a thousand of them had any political training, and the Church could develop with comparative independence of the State. Now every General Conference has a large number of trained politicians. We use the word in its honorable sense, and protest against the debasement of the term. All of these men have participated in American political duties, in town, city, State, or national legislative bodies. Some are or have been judges of various grades, and some executive officers. They are all not only familiar with the usages of a republic, but saturated with its spirit. Now, no man can be a republican in State, and a monarchist in Church. It is an inconceivable phenomenon-except as a 1usus 'nature'. And he is a very poor observer who does not see the effects of our civil training and character in the growing assimilation of our Church to our country. If any ask for evidence, we would refer them to the changes that lave taken place in our forms of church trials, and to the reported systems of judicature recommended at the last General Conference.

Now, fortunately-perhaps, providentially-the government of the Methodist Episcopal Church has some general features strikingly similar to that of the American Republic. It is not Congregationalism. That is somewhat like what the secessionists would have desired had they been faithful to their principle of secession-a mere disunited agglomeration of States, counties, and townships, without federation, or so loosely federated as to have no general authority. To us it seems like liberty run mad. Presbyterianism is instinctively seeking an increase in its federative capacity, showing, what it has always manifested, a hearty sympathy with the American civil government. In America now the tide in State mid Church is against secession, against disunion, against magnify mg State rights, or the right of parts or sections, 50 as to make the great whole imbecile; and in favor of fraternity and of a strong government, exercised by men who shall be subject to law and strictly responsible. Our Church has a grand basis for the development of these principles. The nation is a wonderful system of wheels. A great three-rimmed wheel, legislative, judicial, executive, is the general Government; within that, about fifty smaller three rimmed wheels, the States; within each of them, an indefinite number of solid-rimmed wheels, the counties; within each of these, several solid wheels, the townships-all moving by the same spirit and the same direction. It is the strongest government in the world, because the nature of the whole is in the germ-as of the oak or of the man-all its parts are homogeneous.

Similar is the complex unity of the Methodist Episcopal Church. First, if we look at the outside, we have the twelve, more or less, bishops, somewhat like the justices of the Supreme Court, elected for life, and invested with a well-defined and strictly limited judicial, executive, and supervisory authority. No ecclesiastical officers above these bishops or judges seem to be necessary. Below them come the Annual Conferences, which have much, and probably ought to have more, independent power, like the American States; below them, the District Conferences, like the countries; below them, the Quarterly Conferences-townships or cities. All these should be imbued with one spirit. All should act in harmony, and should have a homogeneous nature.

We should not press a theory into extremes simply for rhetorical effect. Things that grow are better than things that are made. But as these two institutions, each about one hundred years old, mature together. on the same soil, they must naturally become more and more alike. The State is, and ought to be more, republican. But still, though republican in central idea, the civil government has many appointed officers, and maintains itself by authority, and according to law. The judges, members of the cabinet, officers of the army and navy, and many others, are appointed, and must obey. There is a judicious admixture of elections and appointments, and the principle of elections should be admitted only just far enough in theory to prevent the Government from becoming autocratic, or beyond the prompt reach of popular opinion. So, in the Church, all the officers ought not to be elective. The same combination of popular and responsible dependence and authority should be sought. If the Church government needs greater popularization, it is certainly in the elementary institutions, nearest to the primal source of authority. The stewards might, with propriety, be elected by the membership who had attained the proper age. Class-leaders might be nominated by the preacher in charge, and confirmed by the Quarterly Conference. The Annual Conference might safely be allowed to designate the number of presiding elders' districts, within certain assigned limits. Trustees might be prohibited from mortgaging church property without the consent of the membership, to be obtained by a process that would be sure to secure deliberation, and a thorough understanding of the subject. The eligibility of women to some of these offices, and the establishment of other offices for women, might, with propriety, be clearly defined in our fundamental law. All these things are not suggested for the purpose of "tinkering the Discipline," a those say who seem incapable of learning any thing or forgetting any thing-but to provide for increased vitality and usefulness.

To bring this about the General Conference ought to be relieved of a great part of its ceremonial and perfunctory work. The amount of time wasted in bandying compliments and getting its business sifted and put into shape, is enormous; while the attention given to earnest deliberation is far too small. We have endeavored thus plainly to steer between the stupidity of conservatism and the noisy immaturity of radicalism, and to show that, while the great essential pillars of our Church economy are right, many of the smaller attachments need great changes. This, if it is a fact, is gratifying, for it indicates at the same time both safety and prosperity. What needs many changes is not worth saving: what needs no changes is dead.

HTML Conversion and final editing by Brandon Boyd of Northwest Nazarene University (Nampa, Idaho) for the Wesley Center for Applied Theology.

© Copyright 1999 by the Wesley Center for Applied Theology. Text may be freely used for personal or scholarly purposes or mirrored on other web sites, provided this notice is left intact. Any use of this material for commercial purposes of any kind is strictly forbidden without the express permission of the Wesley Center at Northwest Nazarene University, Nampa, ID 83686. Contact the webmaster for permission or to report errors.