and stations (except in the case of ordained ministers of the Church of England) was fixed at three years. But the ministers had become numerous, able, and learned, the Societies selfsupporting and somewhat exacting. Wesley grew old, and saw that, unless provision was made, at his death the body would fall into Congregationalism. To prevent this he executed the famous deed transferring the property and all rights held by him to the "Legal Hundred." The success of the Connection, the personal relations of ministry and laity, the property interests inv ved, produced a coherence and momentum which carried the great body of adherents in safety over the chasm occasioned by Wesley's death; and the Wesleyan "Church" or "Denomination" became thoroughly compacted.

Before Wesley died its government was an ecclesiastical monarchy, absolute in theory, but with many concessions granted to ministers and laity, which, as time passed, made it, like the Government of England, a Limited Monarchy. At the forma tion of the "Legal Hundred" its government became more analogous to that of an "Aristocracy," though modified by all the rights enjoyed by the people. In the United States, prior to the sending over of ministers with authority from Wesley, there was no legal connection between the different nuclei of Methodism in the North and the South. When Asbury assumed jurisdiction he claimed, and the preachers accorded to him, the same power exercised in England by Wesley. The Minutes of the Conference for 1779 close with these questions:

Quest. 12. Ought not Brother Asbury to act as general assistant in America? He ought: 1st, on account of his age; 2d, because originally appointed by Mr. Wesley; 3d, being joined with Messrs. Rankin and Shadford, by express order from Mr. Wesley.

Quest. 13. How far shall his power extend? On hearing every preacher for and against what is in debate, the right of determination shall rest with him, according to the Minutes.

From that time, with considerable trouble and opposition, he exercised his powers, deciding questions, stationing and removing men, until the Revolution was ended and Dr. Coke had arrived. Then the Societies and preachers adhering to Asbury, with the class-meetings, itineracy, and all the peculiarities of Methodism, formed the Methodist Episcopal Church, the his

tory of which momentous transaction being thus stated in the Minutes for 1785, after the publication of the letter brought from John Wesley by Thomas Coke:

Therefore at this Conference we formed ourselves into an independent Church; and, following the counsel of Mr. John Wesley, who recommended the Episcopal form of Church government, we thought it best to become an Episcopal Church, making the Episcopal office elective, and the elected Superintendent or Bishop amenable to the body of ministers and preachers.

From 1785, as from the beginning until then, the Superintendent or Bishop, with no time-limit except one for each case made in his own discretion, stationed the preachers, until 1792, when the following rule was adopted:

Quest. 4. How long may the Bishops allow an elder to preside in the same district?

Ans. For any term not exceeding four years successively.

Emory's foot-note on this question is as follows:

This restriction (for originally there was none) is said to have been introduced in consequence of the evil results of a more protracted term in the case of James O'Kelly, who had been Presiding Elder in the southern part of Virginia ever since the organization of the Church, besides having been stationed there several years before, and who thus acquired a power to injure the Church by his secession which otherwise he would not have possessed.

But there was no restriction on the discretion of the Bishops in fixing the terms of the appointments of ordinary preachers until 1804, when the following rule was passed:

Providing he (the Bishop) shall not allow any preacher to remain in the same station more than two years successively; excepting the Presiding Elders, the Editor and General Book Steward, the Assistant Editor and General Book Steward, the supernumerary, superannuated, and worn-out preachers.

At that time there were no 66 Missionary Society," with its "Corresponding Secretaries," no "editors and assistant editors at Auburn, Pittsburgh, Chicago, St. Louis, Portland, San Francisco, Atlanta, and New Orleans," no "missionaries to Indians, Welsh, Swedes, Norwegians, neglected portions of our cities," to "people of color, and on foreign stations." There certainly was no call on the Methodist Episcopal Church to furnish FOURTH SERIES, VOL. XXXII.-9

་

chaplains to reformatory, sanitary, and charitable institutions, to prisons, and in the army and navy," nor for secretaries or agents of the American Bible Society. None of our ministers were required to be "presidents, principals, or teachers in seminaries of learning," for we had few such institutions in 1804. And in those days of virtual ostracism we were not likely to be asked to furnish professors to "any seminary of learning not under our care.' "" Nor was the "Five Points Mission in New York" nor "the American Chapel in Paris" among "the things that are." The history of these exceptions is the record of the growth of the Church in numbers, intelligence, wealth, and influence, and is interwoven with that of other denominations and of the United States. The editors, agents, corresponding secretaries, and teachers, have special professions or kinds of business to master and conduct; while the chaplains, city missionaries, and "those who may be appointed to labor for the benefit of seamen," have "itinerant" congregations.

At the General Conference of 1844 the rule concerning the length of a presiding elder's term in the same district was made to read thus: "For any term not exceeding four years successively. After which he shall not be appointed to the same district for six years." In 1872 it was provided that "presiding elders in Missions and Mission Conferences in heathen lands may be appointed to the same district for more than four consecutive years." At the General Conference of 1844 the following additional proviso was enacted respecting the appointment of the preachers:

Provided, also, that, with the exceptions above named, he shall not continue a preacher in the same appointment more than two years in six, nor in the same city more than four years in succession, nor return him to it after such term of service till he shall have been absent four years.

This proviso was repealed in 1856. At the Conference of 1864 the rule enacted in 1804, limiting the term of possible service to two years, was made to read thus, "Provided, also, that with the exceptions above named he shall not continue a preacher in the same appointment more than three years in six." So this unique system, which could never have been contrived and established as a whole, has grown and solidified. And now the Superintendents or Rishops, endowed with their

prerogatives by the whole Church in General Conference assembled, before a delegated General Conference was needed or projected; and maintained in the exercise of their authority by the Restrictive Rules (which define the powers never transferred by the ministry and membership to the delegated General Conference) and by the subsequent enactments of said delegated General Conference, have theoretically absolute power and discretion in fixing the appointments of the preachers, being amenable to the General Conference for the proper exercise of the functions of their office. So tremendous is their power in theory; but practically they receive counsel from the Presiding Elders and communications from both preachers and people, giving stability to the machinery by their final determining prerogative, which, though not now frequently exercised ex cathedra, is, like the "discretion" of a judge of the highest court, "not to be appealed from." But when the limit of three years is reached their authority and discretion end. They are themselves subject to law, and if they were to presume to appoint the most useful and popular man, under the ordinary procedure, for a fourth year, it would be an act in the Bishop attempting it of rebellion against the General Conference and the Denomination which would compel his expulsion from office. In no case has it been attempted by a Bishop, though a few instances of stretching the exceptions allowed, to cover special emergencies, have occurred, without in every case being as carefully scrutinized by the succeeding General Conference as they should have been. In this system the appointments are made annually, and the Bishop presiding at the Conference is required to give an appointment to every "effective" member of the Conference not under charges or sentence of suspension.

Every Church, under this system, must receive the minister appointed. It may protest, and object, and temporarily refuse, and by an exercise of "discretion" on the part of the Bishop it may gain its end; but if the issue be fairly joined, and the Bishop refuse to change the appointment, the Church must succumb, or be cut off from the body. In like manner every minister must go to his appointment. He may persuade, argue, implore, and convince "episcopal discretion," and so be appointed elsewhere than at first announced. But if the decree

be not changed he must go, or locate, withdraw, or become a subject of ecclesiastical discipline.

Under the operation of this complex mechanism ten thousand ministers, many of them the equals in experience, learning, eloquence, piety, and local public esteem of those who appoint them, are sent from place to place, compelled to remove at least as often as once in every three years, the whole body averaging as often as once in two years. And ten thousand Churches part on a set day with their pastors, some gladly, some willingly, some doubtfully, some very sadly; to receive others, some very sadly, some doubtfully, some willingly, and some gladly. While the number of ministers who will not go and of Churches that will not receive those who are sent, is so very small as scarcely to be a factor in the estimate of the results of the working of the system.

Many of those who observe the Denomination from without only, and some who, though within, have not carefully studied it, ask why we do, and how we can, submit to it. One answer will meet both questions. We submit to it because we approve it, and we approve it because of the immense and otherwise unattainable advantages which it confers upon the Denomination as a whole. Every thing finite must have the virtues and “defects of its qualities;" and the value of a system is ascertained by experience, and the estimate confirmed by analysis and comparison.

PECULIAR ADVANTAGES OF THE ITINERACY.

The present time and place are suitable to point out even to Some who enjoy without properly estimating them the peculiar advantages of the itineracy. It will, of course, be necessary to re-state well known and "oft told truths," but the writer believes that certain considerations herewith presented have not often, if ever, been brought forward in vindication of the system of periodical transfers of the ministry. That a great work has been done by a settled ministry, and that vigorous and healthy Churches are now maintained by it, no one can doubt; and any allusions to defects in that plan are not made in a spirit of hostility to those denominations which are organized under it, but simply as necessary to the full exhibition of the subject from our point of view.

1. The itineracy provides all Churches with pastors, and all