made the rule solely to keep the limit down to two. We now leave the reader to form his own judgment as to the issue of fact. From the above premises "the conclusion is that ".

If the iron hand of Asbury, when the Churches were weak and the discipline strong, could not maintain the Itineracy without a time limitation, it is certain that, considering all the changes that have transpired, if the limitation by law were removed, the Itineracy would at once and forever break down.

On this the editor of the "Northern" remarks:

So positive and sweeping an inference should rest on unquestionable basis. That Asbury did not want the preachers to wish or expect to remain more than two years in the same place is, according to Lee's testimony, very evident, but that he recommended the rule because he "could not" make the appointments or maintain the Itineracy without it is an inference which the "iron-handed" Asbury would hardly have tolerated. Is it not a pure non sequitur?

We did not attempt to republish Asbury's "Journals," nor his letters to Francis Morrell, nor his valedictory to William M'Kendree, in which he bemoans the difficulties in his way of making changes and keeping the terms short, nor the quaint passage in which, under date of July 13, 1793, he says: "I am convinced there ought to be a change generally, presiding elders and others. This I aim at, but there are great difficulties. . . . All my woods and wilderness troubles vanish in a moment when I have to take one single grain of conference tartar."

We really supposed that every student of Methodist history knew Asbury's views on this subject, and that he was thoroughly opposed to long terms of service in one circuit or station. The question, however, is, what was made out in the article reviewed. It was clearly shown that Asbury could not move the presiding elders without the aid of a time limit; that as late as 1794 he desired the preachers to change every six months, and that in 1804 the General Conference was compelled to make a rule limiting the time to two years, because Asbury had not been able to withstand the pressure, and had appointed some for three years. If it is a non sequitur to conclude from such premises that Asbury could not maintain the Itineracy against localizing tendencies, a true sequence in historical reasoning will be difficult to find.

Whatever view may be taken of our deductions thus far, we have it in our power to set this branch of the subject forever at rest, by giving, in the very words of the minister who proposed the adoption of the two-years' rule, a full account of all the circumstances which led to its enactment, extending even to the conversation with Bishop Asbury on the subject.

HISTORY OF THE ADOPTION OF THE TWO-YEARS' RULE, IN THE WORDS OF ITS MOVER.

The circumstances which led to the adoption of that rule are not fully known at this day. Soon after the commencement of the present century two or three cases occurred that 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 any one else-objected to removal, while the more pious part of the society would have preferred a change; but the officious committee prevailed. One of these unhappy cases came under our personal knowledge when in company with the Bishop, which gave the venerable Asbury much anxiety, seeing that to remove the incumbent would rend the society, and to leave him would result in injury to the Church. Finally they prevailed, and evil followed. In conversation with the Bishop we suggested the above rule, to which he pleasantly replied, "So, then, you would restrict the appointing power?" "Nay, sir," was the reply; "we would aid its execution, for in the present case it seems to be deficient."

His laconic reply of "So, so," encouraged me at the ensuing General Conference of 1804, to present the resolution, which was. signed and seconded by the Rev. Joseph Totten, of the Philadelphia Conference. . . Of course, it was laid on the table for the present. It was talked over out of doors, and scanned in all its bearings by the fireside, and when called up again, after some discussion, it passed with a very general vote. Nearly fortyseven years of experience has proved its utility, and we believe it has saved the Bishops and the Church no little difficulty.. Now, if nearly fifty years ago there were two or three such unhappy cases, might we not reasonably calculate on two or three score at the present day? And if Bishop Asbury, with all his fatherly influence and decision, needed the aid of such a rule,. how much more do our present Bishops! Indeed, we cannot conceive how an efficient systematic Itineracy can be sustained without some such rule; hence our English brethren have one of like import.

The author of the above passage, and the mover of the twoyears' rule, was the venerable Aaron Hunt, of the New York FOURTH SERIES, VOL. XXXII.—22

Conference. The case referred to, concerning which he conversed with Bishop Asbury, was that of the Rev. Cyrus Stebbins. This brother was a man of some influence over the more cultivated classes, and, after being stationed in Brooklyn and New York City, was appointed, in the year 1800, to Albany City, re appointed in 1801, again in 1802, and again in 1803, making in all four consecutive years; and this against the convictions of Bishop Asbury, under the pressure of Brother Stebbins and of the "self-constituted committee," representing the society, and the threat that "to remove him would rend the Church."

The Rev. Aaron Hunt published the foregoing statement in the "Christian Advocate and Journal" for March 6, 1851, over the signature of Luther. Papers in the possession of his grand. son, the Rev. Dr. A. S. Hunt, show that the case of Cyrus Stebbins is the one referred to.

Who, therefore, will hereafter dispute the proposition that Bishop Asbury could not maintain the Itineracy against the wish of certain ministers and Churches without the aid of a time limit. And if "the iron hand of Ashury, when the Churches were weak and the discipline strong, could not maintain the Itineracy without a time-limitation," how can it reasonably be supposed possible now?

As for the Rev. Cyrus Stebbins, though he was returned to Brooklyn, he withdrew in 1805 from the Methodist Episcopal Church.

The so-called "reform" that is to be "the panacea for all our woes, real or imaginary," when studied historically and analytically, has little to commend it to the wisdom of the Church. If it were adopted, a certain proportion of ministers might perhaps find some delightful spot in which to grow old, surrounded by friends who cared for them, and would "stand by them." But the triumphant march of Methodism across the Continent and around the world, even if here and there a check temporary or permanent be felt, is a more inspiring spectacle. That many are at first inclined to favor this proposition arises from the fact that they have "unequally viewed our history and system, and have reasoned from the point of view of the local society and the individual minister, rather than from that of the whole Denomination.

Though the term "Triennialism" has been invented, and the declarations "It will come" and "There is a general call for it" are often reiterated by a comparatively few, it will be found that this "reform" cannot be incorporated with the existing machinery of the Church.

A POSSIBLE AMENDMENT.

That there are some defects in the present system we admit, nor can we be driven to deny it by exaggerated statement of them, or inconclusive reasonings and perilous propositions for their removal. The question is, Can they be remedied or diminished without jeoparding the whole system?

The Australian plan, so-called, with some modifications, that the Bishops may have power, on the request of three quarters of the Quarterly Conference, sustained by a vote of two thirde of the Annual Conference, to re-appoint a pastor up to the period of six years, we suggested might possess the following advantages:

1. The "Itineracy" is still "limited by law."

2. The extension is so protected that it must be exceptional.

3. It would compel influential congregations to show a little more respect to the Annual Conferences than they sometimes do.

4. Such power given to the Annual Conferences would not be an innovation. See Discipline, 1876, pp. 102, 103.

But the proposition has been adversely commented upon. Dr. Daniel Steele, in "Zion's Herald," has said:

But we hope that our preachers will never be required to vote on the term of one another's appointments. It would be like the outs of civil office voting on the ins. We prefer Bishop Peck's suggested extension of the three-years' term when in any case it is deemed to be necessary by all the Bishops in their semi-annual meeting.

A writer, who conceals his name, says:

1. It would take the appointing power from the Bishop and Cabinet and give it to the Conference; for no Bishop would veto this double sanction.

2. Any minister who can get a majority of the official board can so constitute it as to get a two-thirds vote.

3. No Annual Conference would refuse to approve the request of the Quarterly Conference. So that in point of fact the con

tinuance of a pastor beyond the three years would be largely in his own hands.

A well-known layman, in private correspondence, says:

I fear the application of the "possible amendment" would place in many Churches a few members of a Quarterly Conference in the same position as the unfortunate juryman who had to serve with eleven obstinate men.

On these objections a few suggestions may be made. Dr. Steele's objection to the outs voting for the ins implies distrust of the ability of the ministers to rise above personal interest and prejudice. Yet in any special instance all who were not about to move, and all whose places were determined, could vote without prejudice growing out of personal relation to the appointment in question, and nearly all others.

That no Bishop would veto the double sanction, and that no Annual Conference would veto the request of the Quarterly Conference, are propositions not supported by proof. That they would not do so except in extreme cases may be taken for granted. But those who desire any extension should not object to that. That a minister who can get a majority can so constitute the official board as to get two thirds or three fourths, and that the minority may be the most judicious members of the Church, must be admitted. But the minority have a double appeal, namely, to the Annual Conference and to the Bishop.

The reference of such cases to the Board of Bishops is objectionable, because in the matter of transfers for particular Churches, etc., the Bishops have as much responsibility as they can bear; because the "Board" could not obtain personal cognizance of the facts; and because between the meeting of said Board and that of the Conference great changes might

occur.

In the Methodist Episcopal Church of Canada the rule is, that "the Bishop shall not allow any preacher to remain in the same station more than three years successively, unless by request of the Annual Conference, except the presiding elders." The usage is as though it read "consent of the Annual Conference," but final discretion is with the chair as to exceeding three years. The rule was made to cover the case of the Rev.